Google as an infrastructure provider simply has no business being involved in where my content is available. If they sell me a server that is not accessible from certain locations on the internet, I consider them to be selling a broken product.
Perhaps you're saying that, if provided with a list of 5 examples, you would defend why Google chose to censor in those specific cases. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the details of all these cases to be able to pick 5 particularly controversial examples, but I still feel uneasy about the amount of power Google has to silence opinions it disagrees with.
This is one of those times. I don’t agree with their messaging, but Alex Jones should be allowed. Again I completely whole heartily disagree with him, but we can’t be selective in this area.
We’ve kind of validated him to some degree and made him much much bigger than before.
There is a class of people who feel like they aren’t being heard or lied too. Yet we often use tactics to discredit them.
I think this only embolden them. We can even discuss things, without doing the mental laziness of saying. I don’t wanna look at your source, because it’s x.
Within universities, you can’t use one source, why would you think it’s ok now?
You need supporting claims, if you disagree, than support it.. stop being mentally lazy.
YouTube bans thousands of channels a day. It's their right to ban whomever they please and they likely didn't even give the channel owner a reason much less me. For all I know each one of those violated very reasonable terms.
Where did this list even come from? Why are these channels special enough to make it to this list? My guess is the poster agreed with their content, or found news about their banning through various conspiracy-oriented websites.
There's no reason whatsoever to think this list is interesting. There is, however, plenty of reason to think where it was posted is not worth my time.
I think the original point was that Google has a policy of censoring people based on the (perfectly legal) political views that those people have. As you say, Google has the absolute legal right to censor people because of their political views, and presumably you think it is not a problem if they do so.
So I don't think the interesting question is how many of the thousands of channels a day were banned for their unpopular political speech (nor is it interesting to know how special the channels on the r/conspiracy list are), but rather we should ask whether it is good for society if an entity as powerful as Google has this much editorial control over who is exposed to which ideas.
Perhaps you will say that "instructions on how to assemble firearms" is not an expression of a political view, however I would argue that preventing people from imparting legal factual information to help other people exercise a constitutional right seems like something that, if the government were to do it, would be a breach of their First Amendment rights.
So as not to be seen to be taking a specific view on "gun rights", let me give a different (hypothetical, and non-equivalent) situation to clarify what we mean by "banned for political views alone" here.
Suppose that Google had different politics and decided to ban channels that provided assistance to women seeking an abortion. Perhaps Google would allow channels to advocate, in the abstract, for "abortion rights", but not to give any practical advice on how to exercise them. I think that most people would agree that this would count as unconstitutional "viewpoint discrimination" if the government were to do it, so it is effectively a "ban for political views/expression" if Google do it as a private corporation.
I can't speak for the people that create these channels or want to make these expressions, but I have to assume that at least some of them think that they are making people safer by teaching them how to legally arm themselves. That seems to be a view that Google disagrees with, so they have implemented an editorial policy on YouTube which prevents people from expressing that view in a meaningful way.
Perhaps you think that Google would only be banning people for their political views if the company openly said to them: "We are banning your channel because of a political view you have, even if you never express that view in any of your videos." That seems like an unreasonably high bar to require though. If Google said "You can support any party you want, but we won't allow Democrat political candidates to put their campaign ads on their channel." then that would, at least to me, be a ban on political views.
Fires the memo guy
Complies to DMCA
My favourite is Google officially comparing EU’s right to be forgotten law with russia’s anti gay propaganda law... cannot get lower than that.
Can you explain how "Sandy hook was faked and no children were killed" is a political view? Or how "Anthony Bourdain's suicide was faked for monetary gain" is somehow a political opinion?
I only against censoring freedom of speech and creating ideological echo Chambers.
>Here is just a small handful of YouTube channels censored based on their political views:
I'm asking you to justify calling this censorship based on political views, like you claimed. I didn't say anything about your views.
Clearly state what is allowed and what is not. Do not pick sides and change rules on a case by case basis.
Do what you say you are going to do. That's how businesses used to earn trust. Now integrity in business is a thing of the past.
I'd rather have a bunch of crazy people expressing themselves on the web than being selectively removed due to a couple's persons opinions on what is right especially when it is not written in stone and enforced sitewide on all accounts.
If you want to say Sandy Hooks is fake, go to your own corner, like 127.0.0.1.
Obviously there are some challenges in the 'like this' part, but it seems like it might scale better and be less prone to centralized censorship problems than the current mechanism.
The sad part is that 'yzmtf2008' will exist inside of a vacuum and will miss out on things that appear crazy and may actually be true, but perhaps the upside is that this person may be more productive in other areas of life by defocusing on distractions.
The big problem is that there is no valid counter argument to conspiracy theorist. That means all conventional means of combating them are useless.
I don't agree that keeping conspiracy theorists off a platform is censorship. It's more akin to removing spam.
Jones himself argued (in his divorce hearing) that he doesn't expect anyone to believe him. I think in that case it is hard to argue it is political speech.
(A): This extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence.
Their response to why they banned Alex Jones, for instance, was that it wasn't because of the content of his views, but that he violated their cyberbullying guidelines multiple times (he received several strikes in the past).
Maybe I'm being naive, but their motivation doesn't appear to be censorship, but to make YouTube a less toxic place than it already is.
freedom of speech does not keep someone from thinking you (not you specifically, but the general you) are an idiot or a kook, nor does it protect you from the consequences of your words by those other individuals (obviously other laws protect you from intentional physical harm and the like). nothing can compel me to listen to you or make a company broadcast your conspiracy theories (again, the general you).
You are confusing laws (like 1st amendment of the US Constitution) with freedom of speech. Laws exist because freedom of speech is important, not the other way around. The fact that laws only restrict the government from suppressing freedom of speech doesn't mean it is not important in other contexts, just because there's no law enforcing it.
> nothing can compel me to listen
Banning someone from the internet (or any part of Internet that is serviced by a major corporation, which is almost all of it) is not the same as "I do not want to listen", it's "I don't like you so nobody gets to listen to you, at least not without extraordinary effort which 99.999% of people are not capable of". If you just don't want to listen to somebody on youtube, it's enough to not go to that channel. Removing the whole channel goes way beyond that and the only purpose of that to silence, not to "not listen" but to cause others not to listen.
There are many allegations in there, but the most salacious one is that Schmidt’s girlfriend was illegally working for Hillary on State dept matters. (I believe they made audio recordings of the phone calls that prove this, but can’t find the shorter write up anywhere).
The CEO of Jigsaw (formerly Google Ideas) advised both Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton.
Snark aside, the asymmetry in their dealings with foreign governments compared to their own is quite illuminating, and the above is by far not the only such incident
They bought a Chinese directory with a "search engine" that just redirects to Baidu, but kept all the juicy search terms to seed the future product.
No, Google has no business in it, but export control does.
If you think the law is unjust, then target the law, don't target the companies which err on the side of legal caution. After all, certainly we'd prefer for companies to err on the side of regulators in many other cases...
Hetzner doesn't come even close in this regard.
That doesn't make sense to me, letting people from those countries access resources on GCP does make Google money, since presumably Google will be paid by the website owner (which doesn't live in any of these countries) for the extra bandwidth/resources used by their website.
This is not much more far-fetched than the idea that a site like The Pirate Bay is guilty of "conspiring" with its users to infringe copyright.
"We're a piracy site, run by pirates, and we love piracy and pirates because of what piratical pirates we are, so we built a piracy site specially to cater to pirates and piracy! Also, we do not condone it in the slightest and built it for totally legitimate purposes, we promise!"
Yeah, gonna go with "no" on that one. It does not take an "imaginative" prosecutor to find the incredibly unbelievably subtle and deeply-hidden links between the Pirate Bay and its intended purpose.
Of course the "intent" of the accused is something that a legal process can consider, but I've always been unimpressed with the argument of "It's right in the name!" when considering whether to censor The Pirate Bay. If they had changed their name to the "I Rate Bay", and branded themselves as a site for people to discuss and rate the quality of certain hex strings (magnet links), then, by the "It's right in the name!" argument, the site should be perfectly legal.
There were a number of factors which lead to the legal judgements against The Pirate Bay (across the multiple jurisdictions where the site is censored), but if the legality of a site were to come down to a single letter in its domain name, and not based at all on the actual functionality of the site, then I think that would put us in a very odd place in terms of freedom of speech and the enforceability of the law.
We're back to the "wine bricks" of the Prohibition era, with their "warning" not to leave the contents dissolved in a gallon of water in the cool cupboard for 21 days, to prevent "accidentally" creating wine:
The don't earn money by letting packets from Iran route to their network; The people who could be losing money are their customers who's content is restricted.
The Oracle JRE contains strong cryptography which is illegal to export to certain sanctioned countries. It being free doesn't change anything about that. That one is actually legitimate.
Plus, is it really illegal to export cryptography software? If that is the case, why are Java downloads the only ones restricted? Shouldn't, for example, Visual Studio and .Net also be blocked? I don't think it is for any valid legal reason. Just that they cannot make money from these countries, so they can't be bothered to let them access their download servers.
Microsoft does not sell products to any sanctioned countries.
Note that  has a giant loophole for open source software, which requires notice but not permission - so builds of .NET Core, OpenJDK, OpenSSL itself, and so on, can be exported no problem. Also, programs built WITH the primitives are "mass market", so are exemptable that way.
Can we really say <insert_megacorp_name_here> will do or not do 'X', or has some immutable policy 'Y', with any reliability? Historically, have we not seen that these policies change with the direction of the wind, and/or are applied inconsistently to suit narrative 'Z'?
What is true today may not be true tomorrow. There is no bastion of moral decency in cloud infra, and to make decisions based on a current stance is facile and probably pointless.
I'm far more interested in what awareness the GitLab folks have of this issue, and procedures in place to mitigate it, if any.
 - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/migration/issues/649
 - https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/...
 - https://about.gitlab.com/2018/06/25/moving-to-gcp
Either way, the best way to fix this is to lobby Congress.
But ideology can be a powerful reason. And people in Open Source can be very ideological. Certainly for me, this makes Gitlab a no-go. I want my code to be accessible by everyone. I do wonder what kind of pressure could be applied to Gitlab in terms of free software developers shunning the platform.
I expect Google to make a little bit of an effort here.
It's another vector to apply pressure to get the issue resolved. There's the direct course (you to your congressperson) which likely won't matter, unless you have enough like-minded individuals all applying the same pressure.
Then there's the indirect course (business to congressperson) which will likely matter more, since the business can donate larger sums of money, all at once.
Politics is the opposite of business, as far as cash-flow is concerned. Business wants sustained, regular amounts to allow for forward planning. Politics wants bursted, large amounts of cash to immediately address issues of the day.
There might also be other reasons one would prefer to follow the spirit of the law and help put pressure on two dictatorships where at least one of them seeds instability in many countries.
That is "as long as it's legal" doesn't seem to be the governing principle for Google right now.
The ulterior motive is that understanding Kubernetes now has serious professional value in and of itself, so if the product fails your experience certainly doesn’t.
That said, I’m surprised Gitlab didn’t announce a new nav redesign at the same time ;)
My point is that every offering has its place. Heroku is great for getting going.
Recently I’ve been experimenting with Dokku. I think it’s a totally viable alternative to Heroku. I do value my time, and understand the value of PaaS. But when Heroku starts charging insane amounts for Redis memory, it made me look for easy alternatives and Dokku fits the bill well.
Heroku is surprisingly nice as an enterprise customer.
Anyone from Gitlab have any data to share? I had a look at https://monitor.gitlab.net/d/000000003/fleet-overview?refres... but don't know what I am looking at :-)
General browsing around feels snappier than it did before. I just tried importing some new repos from Github and it was fast (like 2 or 3 seconds for tiny repos, under 10s for larger ones). During the aftermath of the Github acquisition repo imports were taking days, but that was probably because of the load I guess.
Would be good to back this up wit some data :-)
We are working on a new public monitor page to share soon too.
Traffic inbound to a GCP-hosted system first goes to a local point-of-presence, then makes relatively few hops to reach its destination via Google's private fibre network.
You can get a discount if you let packets make their own way to the destination over the public internet, but in practice that will make sense for cost-sensitive bulk operations, rather than interactive usage.
However, I did take a few minutes just now while I’m farting around on my phone on the toilet to go and browse through random repos, opening random files, looking through issues/merge requests, etc, and it definitely seem noticeably snappier, opening large files from my phone seemed to be as quick as github, no sitting twiddling my thumbs waiting for a 200+ line file to load like I had previously experienced many times. Hopefully someone can confirm this with some actual numbers, but first impressions are pleasant.
If the performance improvements are actually significant, and hold up overtime, this will certainly help gitlab’s ever growing popularity as the one complaint I always see get brought up in gitlab discussions is it’s performance (aside from a few that don’t like the UI — but that’s a bit more towards personal preference rather than objective metrics).
It’ll likely take some classic 80s-90s Microsoft “business strategy”, or more recently what they did with Skype, for gitlab to ever have a chance at overtaking github. But, as a gitlab user, and fan of competition/not having essentially a single (closed source) entity being the “hub” of all open source code.
All this said, while I’m more than happy to see major performance improvements to gitlab.com, what would make me even happier is to see some performance improvements for self hosted instances. But, I realize that takes quite a bit more work to improve since it likely involves quite a bit of code/app level optimizations, rather than just throwing more computing power at it. Our instance at work is usable, but good lord can opening large files/directories be annoying, and since unfortunately gitlab isn’t really considered a hyper critical system at my workplace, deploying it to largely scaled & optimized GCP/AWS/Azure infra isn’t likely going to be an option anytime soon. So, gitlab just please don’t forget about us lowly folks that have it deployed to a small cluster/single server who can’t just throw more and more resources at it.
Also, if there any gitlab folks reading my rant, and you want to grant a wish of mine/make my work life significantly more enjoyable, if you guys could get back to the people that have been in contact with you about getting a education gitlab ultimate license (I work at a large university), I’d likely forget about the performance issues entirely. They said they reached out to you guys, however they said they were told the education license program wasn’t ready to be completely rolled out or something?
As for the differences compared to being on Azure. We don't have any definitive results right now. We'll have to wait for Monday so we can get more performance data. Most likely, we'll have a better image if and how performance changed in the middle of next week. That being said, we did observe an improvement in p95 response time for our web and api nodes - it's a roughly 30% to 40% reduction. We're working on a public monitoring page so you and the community can browse through these metrics at your own leisure.
With regards to the Education program - it's now in full swing and available to everyone. You can apply via . We sent out an automated email to let people know it was still in preparation some time ago. It should have been followed up with an email stating that it's fully functional too. Not sure why the university you work at didn't get the second one. Let me know if there's any holdups with your application after you apply through the linked form.
 - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf...
 - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues?scope=al...
 - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues?scope=al...
 - https://about.gitlab.com/education/
> With regards to the Education program - it's now in full swing and available to everyone.
Awesome to hear! The group that maintains the gitlab instance is just a few volunteers that meet once/twice a month to work on maintenance/upgrades, and the update I got from them about the education license being on hold was ~2-3 weeks ago, however this month’s meeting was cancelled for whatever reason, so they likely have gotten the update that it’s now available, and just haven’t had the chance to work on getting it setup yet. But, I’ll ask them Monday, and send them the link if they aren’t already aware. Can’t wait to finally get to use some of those awesome ultimate features at work.
Appreciate the response! Always like seeing you guys pop in to these threads with some extra tidbits/insights/help.
Call me a tinfoil nutjob, I still don't buy it and would move away from azure too in that situation.
I suspect it's because some people really like microsoft and are personally offended that a customer left.
I would do the same thing. Not sure what you're implying. Now get back to hobby and improve pmos (pls).
While other commenters have criticized the "hidden truth" angle of this comment, I'd like to point out that some insiders may have foreseen GitHub aligning with MS a little earlier.
I had a hunch, way before Microsoft announced the acquisition, that if GitHub was ever sold it would be to MS, as it aligns with their outreach to open source developers. At the same time, they were quite active on, and happy to endorse GitHub, which is a kind of cross-promotion large corporations only do when they're stakeholders of the smaller company (or at least have some contract defining the terms and legal consequences related to this PR activity)
Yes there are examples out there but I think this is a very different situation where proprietary technology is a main advantage.
Any reason to suggest otherwise is dwarf by this reason alone. Good move and logical.
We have seen embrace-extend-extinguish from MS before. Even if you believe they've changed there's no reason to label everyone else as incompetent.
Github was a for-profit organization losing massive amounts of money with stalled development and weak features compared to competitors. It's only major asset was the large community. It now has a many more resources to stay around long-term and finally start building better products. Your data is also 1-click away from being exported and git is already distributed meaning every developer has a complete clone.
What possible issue is there to worry about?
I get the impression that compared to GKE, EKS is not yet fully baked as an easy to use product. It still involves too much manual fiddling around (e.g. see above) and operational complexity.
I'd advise any clients of mine who want to run Kubernetes in the cloud to stick to GKE for now. The lower prices on GKE are a nice bonus also.
That said, I don't discount what Amazon can do in this space. If they make the setup/admin experience as easy as spinning up a VM on AWS then Google will have a serious competitor. But not yet.
BTW, for smaller shops and solo devs, I hear good things about the upcoming Digital Ocean Kubernetes service. It's in beta right now:
How would smaller shops and/or solo devs benefit from using Digital Ocean Kubernetes service over GKE?
EKS masters will still run most of the cluster services to free up your worker nodes, but that's because they have very poor control over everything other than the masters. And since that's the most important part of the cluster, you will run into a lot of manual work and broken systems getting the cluster up and running on EKS.
GKE is about 10x smoother and everything works as expected, and they are rapidly improving things with much better storage and networking options coming soon. At that point the experience will become 100x better than EKS.
Is there an archive link, or is it just gone because I didn't watch right then?
And congratulations to the whole team on the move. I know it must be a relief now that it's behind you.
It's not quite over though. Monday traffic will be far higher than the weekend. People will need to login, which will put unusual stress on those endpoints.
Also, there is a small chance someone experiences malformed or missing data. There was only a single repo that we know experienced this, which we're already working on. So I'm only talking about unknown unknowns. So we will be on high alert to respond to any such requests and retrieve data from the archives in the previous infrastructure.
You even get marketing promotions about GCP in the consoles empty states. Sometimes it feels like a cheap Google adware. I cringe when I see so many Google references in GitLab.
GitLab is basically a subsidiary of Google Cloud at this point.
I really like GitLab since their service and user experience is top notch. I use it in all my side projects. I just wish they weren't so heavily biased to push and promote GCP. If they advertised themselves as a cloud agnostic and completely independent Git solution, I would be more trusting of their service. But the reality is the opposite. Sadly.
> Google is an investor in GitLab
Not true. GV invested in GitLab. GV != Google. (Just do a web search to learn the difference.)
> push heavily for GCP to their customers offering USD 200 free credits
True. It's free credit for our users, of course, we let them know :) Note that this is Google's standard partner credit. All their partners offer this. It's not unique to GitLab.
> Zero marketing mentions regarding integrations with AWS
Not true. Amazon is also a GitLab partner, and We officially support EKS: https://about.gitlab.com/2018/06/06/eks-gitlab-integration/
> Sometimes it feels like a cheap Google adware.
This may be accurate. I think we got this wrong the 1st time out of the gate. Here's an issue where we improved the look and feel to be less 'adware' and more informative. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/48804
> advertised themselves as a cloud agnostic
We are a cloud-agnostic company and we do advertise it. (e.g. even in our launch post for the GCP marketplace we make a point to say "you can install GitLab almost anywhere" https://about.gitlab.com/2018/07/18/install-gitlab-one-click...) Although, perhaps not enough. This is good feedback that we need to make this message more front-and-center.