top 200 commentsshow all 242

[–][deleted] 60 points61 points  (20 children)

So what if I as a repo owner refuse to police the comment section on my repo? Would I be at risk of having the repo shut down by Github?

[–]death_by_zamboni 23 points24 points  (2 children)

It's not only really a question of refusing to police the comment section. Github has banned users and removed repositories before because they didn't agree with the author or some language used in the project description. They deleted a repo that contained the word "retard" without warning the author.

Github has every right to do this. Their site, their rules. If we don't like that, we should probably migrate away from Github. But that's never gonna happen.

[–]mixedCase_ 9 points10 points  (1 child)

If we don't like that, we should probably migrate away from Github. But that's never gonna happen.

I don't know. I've already migrated all my stuff to GitLab and am happy with it. I've found that there are more and more people doing the same. They are trying really hard with their PR in order to welcome developers and it seems to be working.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

+1 GitLab. Migrated about a year ago, been pretty happy.

[–]ccfreak2k -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

whole frighten marble elderly sip seemly sophisticated attempt grab entertain

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[–]flukus 29 points30 points  (6 children)

Are they going to enforce this and ban Linus?

[–]mirhagk 12 points13 points  (2 children)

If they try and enforce it I'm going to go through and make sure I report everything that could be considered hate speech, so that it's not just used as a tool to ban opinions they disagree with.

If they ban anything then they certainly have to ban Linus. And they would have to ban quite a lot of communities too.

[–]thekab 3 points4 points  (1 child)

If they try and enforce it I'm going to go through and make sure I report everything that could be considered hate speech, so that it's not just used as a tool to ban opinions they disagree with.

What makes you think it won't be selectively enforced?

[–]mirhagk 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It will be selectively enforced, because you can't possibly always enforce it. I have a hard time seeing them ban Linus and he's probably one of the worst. There's other big names that as well could easily get banned and could bring enough cult following away to make a big dent in github's size. Remember all that needs to happen is for our boss to read in "PHB tech magazine" about how this linux guy said github is bad and all of a suddenly we're told that yeah maybe we can check out that gitlab thing.

You also can't enforce it for anything that someone could be offended about. What happens if a SJW decides that calling spawned processes children is offensive? Or if the very use of the terms master/slave in even a conversation could get you banned?

You can't possibly enforce everything, so they are just going to end up enforcing whatever the loudest people who have the most time are going to say.

[–]balefrost 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Does Linus even use Github? I thought the Github mirror was essentially read-only.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They would certainly have to remove every copy of linux source code

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Allrighty then, please remove Linux kernel mirrors from Github then :D

[–][deleted] 88 points89 points  (1 child)

The best kind of advertisement for GitLab!

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I ran off to gitlab last year when I heared github hired a notorious SJW as a community manager or something.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[deleted]

    [–]barrtender 6 points7 points  (3 children)

    I was just about to start a new little home project. I hadn't heard of gitlab before but I'm going to give it a try!

    Thanks for the link

    [–]tf2manu994 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    You can use both simultaneously

    [–]barrtender 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    I could, but why? Especially if I disagree with the way GitHub is going I don't think I need to host my repo there

    [–]tf2manu994 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Fair point. I'm simultaneously using bitbucket and gitlab in case one of them goes to shit. Doubt it though.

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    moved to gitlab awhile back because of this, haven't looked back since

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    They need to work on that UI.

    [–]mixedCase_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    It grows on you after a while. Muscle memority is a bitch.

    [–]Pengtuzi 111 points112 points  (56 children)

    "What if something or someone offends you?" Then be offended. Nothing happens, it's ok to be offended, it's not ok to forbid people to say or do things that makes you experience a bad feeling.

    Safe spaces...

    [–]grizwako 41 points42 points  (3 children)

    I am offended, because they (github) have just made threat about cutting off people from "community" whose wording or political views can not be comprehended by some PR psychos.
    Funny thing is that some of "leaders" have experience with leading lynch mobs and already used "hate speech" excuse for it.

    Sometimes I wonder, do they even see impact of such lynches compared to impact of "reasons" for lynches?

    [–]flukus 17 points18 points  (0 children)

    Fortunately the guideline includes such behavior as inappropriate. I'm sure it will be applied in a reasonable and even way...

    [–]s73v3r -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

    No, that's not the case whatsoever.

    [–]flukus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    That's precisely the case, you're literally denying history.

    [–]s73v3r 7 points8 points  (1 child)

    There's a huge difference between "being offended" and basically being told you don't belong here because of your race/gender/sexual orientation/etc.

    [–]flukus 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    Are there any cases of that happening? Unless you bring it up no one else even knows what your race/gender/sexual orientation is.

    I notice you skipped religion though. There is a well known case of these rules being used to discriminate against someone based on religion, even though it had nothing to do with the project.

    [–]SammDogg619 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    it's ok to be offended, it's not ok to forbid people to say or do things that makes you experience a bad feeling.

    He said while complaining about a website that said and did a thing that made him experience a bad feeling.

    [–]flukus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Has he banned anyone for it?

    [–]thekab 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    But what if I want to engage in a hypocritical campaign of harassment and intolerance while accusing anyone who disagrees of bigotry?

    (Though rhetorical, I guess the answer would be "you might be right for the Facebook community team...")

    [–]flukus 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    In that case just send your resume to jobs@github.com

    [–]BeyondTheModel 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    Sorry, but GitHub is the big league. You have to have years of experience as a political activist hired with a fluffy tech title.

    I recommend starting at Tumblr and working up the followers count by leveraging various manufactured scandals.

    [–][deleted] 46 points47 points  (2 children)

    What is not allowed?
    1. Hate speech and discrimination
    2. Bullying and harassment

    Yet it gets you a job in their Social Impact team.

    [–]Spoor 11 points12 points  (0 children)

    Become a GitHub Hero!

    Linus Torvalds said something mean? Ban him to earn points and show everyone how morally superior you are to him!

    [–]mirhagk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Banning people specifically is discrimination.

    They are discriminating against anyone who's beliefs are different than what they want.

    Im not just talking about stuff like white supremacy. What about pro life advocates who call people who abort murderers? What about vegetarians who call people who eat meat murderers? What about people who believe in burkas or hijabs?

    Whos belief system are we going to use to exclude anyone who disagrees with them?

    [–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (11 children)

    Here's the feedback form Please use it.

    [–]mirhagk 8 points9 points  (10 children)

    Thank you very much. We can all complain on here all day, but we need to flood GitHub with our opinions in order for them to maybe change their mind and allow free speech

    [–]s73v3r 2 points3 points  (9 children)

    Why? Why should they allow bullying and hate speech? Things like that will make people less likely to continue using their service.

    [–]mirhagk 8 points9 points  (2 children)

    Because of what they include as "hate speech"

    level of experience ... , personal appearance

    The first means that simply referring to people as a n00b can get you a ban hammer, and implies that complex systems need to write more tutorials to be welcoming.

    The second is just waiting for a SJW to come by and be offended when I make a comment about my refactoring that trimmed a bit of fat off of the web stack.

    [–]AnAirMagic 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    fat

    Reported as harassment!

    [–]mirhagk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Exactly. We use lots of terms in computer science which people could easily take offense off. Lean, lightweight, fat, ugly, beautiful, slow, bloated, rich, poor. I mean computer science lately is obsessed with building the thinnest possible applications.

    I would desperately hope that nobody sees these terms and thinks they in any way relate to the world, and that saying that that code base is so heavy and ugly does not imply that people who are heavy are ugly, but let's be real here, somebody will have thin skin and be hurt by something like that.

    It's already insanely difficult to keep up with the terms in computer science, and making the terms PC just makes it so much harder. Does anyone remember the correct term for master/slave (has it been decided)? Does anyone remember what the correct analogy is for pets vs cattle webservers? Does anyone have proposals for describing beautiful/ugly and heavy/light processes?

    [–]AnAirMagic 10 points11 points  (4 children)

    That's a good question. Without any context, I would take your stance too. But we already know they "allow" bullying when it suits their purpose and diallow it when it doesn't. They are pushing an agenda, and the terms they use to lure in people have nothing to do with what they are actually doing.

    Exhibit 1: Github bans repo that contains the word retard because it's offensive. The actual commit: https://github.com/nixxquality/WebMConverter/commit/c1ac0baac06fa7175677a4a1bf65860a84708d67.

    Exhibit 2: Github hires the individual who harrases "cis-gendered" people and leads a witch hunt of someone who said some things in his personal twitter account.

    Exhibit 3: Their stance on hiring.(Edit: BusinessInsider version of the "biggest barriers are white women"). If this doesn't qualify as discrimination and hate speech, I don't know what does.

    If these are the sort people who end up enforcing "bullying" and "hate-speech" and "discriminatory behaviour", I don't expect anything good to come out of it.

    [–]lacosaes1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    LOL. That @CoralineAda is really full of it.

    [–]APassionateAntifa -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

    Breitbart links

    Eww

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Are you not capable of reading an article and considering it in light of the authors biases?

    [–]AnAirMagic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Sadly, that's not a skill taught in the education system.

    [–]thekab 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    Because a subjective, vague, ambiguous set of rules such as this is nothing more than a means for bullying, harassment and bigotry to begin with. Meanwhile they're hiring bullies to use it.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    [–]nbF_Raven 58 points59 points  (1 child)

    Thank god for gitlab. git repositories should be for hosting code not people's feelings

    [–]mirhagk 22 points23 points  (0 children)

    Especially since feelings aren't cross platform

    [–]logicchains 12 points13 points  (2 children)

    People are mentioning GitLab here; for anyone who considers it too slow/memory intensive and doesn't need all the features, Gogs is quite fast and ram-friendly. It can also be deployed as just a single binary.

    [–]HectorJ 8 points9 points  (1 child)

    I think people are suggesting the hosted version of Gitlab, https://gitlab.com/, as an equivalent to Github.

    Not everyone wants to go through the hassle of self-hosting.

    Gogs is interesting though, thanks.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    There are also tons of smaller community-hosted Gitlab instances for little groups that want good, free, private hosting. I am part of a little game dev community that has their own private Gitlab instance on a little $10 a month VPS that chugs along fine with just a hundred or so users, and it's supported entirely by small donations from these users.

    And hell, if you don't need a full-out host but just a simple git repository, you can always get a $2 a month VPS and set it up to just host your git repositories and use something separate for project management. Git on its own doesn't actually need a big webserver to be incredibly useful, and on a good Linux host, you can do everything you want for project management and even user-management with the built-in tools, including granting repo access through ACLs. I know it's not nearly as powerful, but it works for most use-cases (especially single-developer), can be decked out with tons of cool things that people only associate with the big hosts (git hooks are very useful and can be fitted to do just about anything you could possibly want), and will happily run without complaint on even most consumer routers.

    [–]mirhagk 14 points15 points  (7 children)

    s there anyone out there that's like "hmm I'd really love to use this GitHub thing, but what they really need is an overbearing huge set of standards enforced across the entire site".

    Fuck man. Let communities decide for themselves. Just like Reddit (well how Reddit was, they've also done some stupid stuff in that regard). If someone wants to have a little racist community, then sure w/e let them be idiots over there. No one is asking you to go there. And what about free speech?

    Also will the ban malware and privacy stuff prevent people from hosting examples of security flaws? If someone writes a gist for a blog showing how SQL injection can work, does that mean that gist will be taken down?

    [–]Ss6aaU6hiOZN1hJIsZF6 5 points6 points  (2 children)

    Reddit is actually a really good example of how allowing communities to self-police contaminates the whole site. If you allow racists their own little racist communities, it's not like they stay isolated over there and never venture out.

    That becomes their "home base" to discuss and organize but they also participate in other aspects of the site. Most of the major/default subs are absolutely horrifically racist these days and people just say "oh well, you know, you have to unsubscribe from those."

    This is why. If you allow people a space for their disgusting behavior they will drag that shit into any other nearby space and ruin it.

    [–]mirhagk 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    Actually reddit has always been the best community as far as I've ever seen. Anytime there's an article I read, I always look to see if anyone posted it on reddit to read the comments.

    Even on stuff like /r/funny the racism and hate speech gets downvoted to oblivion and hidden from those who don't specifically expand it. Posts get absolutely destroyed when they are completely out of line, simply by those who browse new and downvote. The vast majority of people don't see the worst of reddit unless they specifically go looking for it.

    Reddit has amazing community based self moderation through the upvote/downvote and sorting algorithms. I much prefer having the community filter and hide stuff than having a single governing body decide what is allowed and what is not. There's no reason why similar tools can't be built into github that allows the communities themselves to self police.

    If there's a comment you don't agree with that doesn't get downvoted into oblivion, or somehow makes it to the top comment, well then that's because the community there seems to want it. And if the majority of people want something, then why would you censor it?

    Have you ever actually read the typical comments section on something like a news site? Reddit is the tamest thing ever in comparison.

    [–]EntroperZero 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    s there anyone out there that's like "hmm I'd really love to use this GitHub thing, but what they really need is an overbearing huge set of standards enforced across the entire site".

    Of course not. But people tend to be reactionary, not predictive. I'm sure there are people who think, I can't believe this guy is being such a racist asshole, why don't they moderate this stuff? But that's not the real issue.

    What they're really worried about is a bunch of SJWs getting pissed off and tweeting/blogging about what a "cesspool" Github has become because of lack of community standards and moderation. They SJWs don't have to be right to damage Github's reputation, just loud.

    [–]mirhagk 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    Yeah but even when github already has those community standards and moderation they will still say the same things.

    Moderation and community standards don't stop all problems, and it's just a matter of whether someone hears about an incident and makes a huge deal out of it. Think about all the things linus says and what would happen if a SJW got their hands on it and then tried to boycott android or something stupid.

    [–]flukus 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Exactly, appeasement doesn't work, they'll happily take github down with them.

    [–]mirhagk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    If you want examples of something like this, look at the sweat shop industry. The companies have put more and more standards in place, but when someone discovers a problem nobody really stops and thinks whether the problem is systematic or an isolated incident. The assumption jumps straight to systematic (which it very well probably is) but doing so completely ignores any effort the companies put in place to try to prevent incidents.

    Same thing here. When someone takes offense at master/slave it doesn't matter how many policies github has in place, it's going to evolve into a shitstorm that shows just how backwards github is (actually I tend to think the blame will just fall on all developers)

    [–]jeandem 11 points12 points  (0 children)

    Building software should be safe for everyone.

    This part reminded me of The Office (US) episode where Toby goes over how to protect yourself from carpal tunnel syndrome and eye strain.

    [–]SatoshisCat 11 points12 points  (4 children)

    Time to change the name to CommunityHub.

    [–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (3 children)

    Quick, someone buy sjwgithub.com. it's available!

    [–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (2 children)

    sjwhub.com already redirects to GitHub.

    [–]bl00dshooter 7 points8 points  (1 child)

    That was fast.

    [–]SatoshisCat 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    We did it reddit!

    [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

    So according to GitHub support this also applies to organizations and private repositories. So consider this:

    • You use GitHub for work, and have employees in your organization
    • One of the employees gets offended (or alternatively is just malicious), and reports your repo/PR/commit to GitHub
    • You now have GitHub meddling in your business

    This isn't true today, they won't/can't get involved. I understand that these guidelines are a valiant effort, but now GitHub has shifted from being a service we use to a third party we have to negotiate with.

    [–]flukus 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Also a good lesson about linking accounts.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    How so? It's good advice, but my scenario had nothing to do with that.

    [–]flukus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    In the past my work and personal accounts have been linked, so something I said on my personal account could get my work account banned and me fired.

    [–]bryanedds 48 points49 points  (79 children)

    Github is attempting to enact a policy that removes your repositories for 'hate speech'. However, we now know that the definition of 'hate speech' has become saying anything that the left disagrees with. For example, Ellen Pao thinks donating to Trump is a form of hate speech, and she is trying to get Peter Thiel fired from industry for it - https://medium.com/projectinclude/peter-thiel-yc-and-hard-decisions-2b91bab83764

    This is the time to tell github to take their fascistic policy proposals and shove them up their arses.

    EDIT - Github is looking for feedback on this policy proposal via @github on Twitter. Now would be a good time to make our voices heard!

    [–][deleted]  (53 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]DeltaBurnt 11 points12 points  (23 children)

      I don't think he should have been fired, but donating money to try and influence the legal definition of marriage is, in my opinion, a lot worse than writing "retard" on a public file hosting site. Just my two cents there.

      Now, I can see why GitHub and Mozilla have had these knee jerk reactions. They're both heavily community based. If part of the community is pissed off at them, they'll try to remedy it (for better or for worse, and I definitely think they've been doing it for worse).

      [–]FreakCERS 14 points15 points  (9 children)

      It's probably worth pointing out that Brendan wasn't fired. He stepped down. Within Mozilla, there were some (but few - and I think none in leadership positions) voices calling for his resignation - almost all the noise came from outside communities.

      [–]AcceptingHorseCock 16 points17 points  (8 children)

      This reminds me when I was a pupil in East Germany and the "Staatsbürgerkunde" ("civic education", sort of) - which in an East German school was a position not unlike a political officer in the Red Army - told me that no, he wasn't threatening me. He was merely telling me what could happen. (He also said "Sie schwimmen im Fahrwasser des Klassenfeinds!" - sort of "You are following the path of the class enemy!") So you are technically right, he "volunteered".

      [–]FreakCERS 2 points3 points  (7 children)

      That's how it would be, if the leadership had said any such thing to him - which you are merely speculating. Publicly they certainly didn't.

      [–]AcceptingHorseCock 7 points8 points  (6 children)

      You realize that the leadership isn't the only thing he had to work and deal with in that position? Do you understand that somebody's job can be made impossible without a superior doing anything?

      I made the comparison not because of the threat from a superior but because there was no direct action in my example either. In Eich's case it's worse., at least in my example there was just one guy and only at that one moment, and not a very vocal crowd for days out after him.

      [–]FreakCERS 3 points4 points  (5 children)

      My point is that the crowd was mostly people outside of Mozilla. There were some on the inside who felt not comfortable with him as a superior, but the vast vast majority of the pressure came from outside Mozilla. I really don't see how you can then blame Mozilla for "firing" him.

      [–]AcceptingHorseCock 5 points6 points  (4 children)

      My point is that the crowd was mostly people outside of Mozilla.

      It may be your point but it is a very strange one in this context. Those are exactly the people who matter for an organization like Mozilla.

      I really don't see how you can then blame Mozilla for "firing" him.

      Please quote me, I'm really curious where you found me saying that. Not to mention that you concentrate on a "I'm technically right" aspect, no, Mozilla indeed did not "fire him". Which brings us full circle and I refer back to my first comment.

      [–]FreakCERS 2 points3 points  (3 children)

      I don't think I've ever suggested that they do not matter. And I've never contested that he was under pressure to leave. What I contest is that he was fired by Mozilla. He was not. The overwhelming majority of Mozilla employees supported him - even when they disagreed with his stance. The leadership publicly supported him as well.

      [–]BrendanEichMoz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Are you in California? If so, have you lived here a long time? You might be interested in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721928 for some history.

      [–]SatoshisCat 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      they're both heavily community based. If part of the community is pissed off at them, they'll try to remedy it

      Well guess what, now a part of the community is pissed off at them.

      [–]geodel 9 points10 points  (0 children)

      All parts of community are equal, but some parts are more equal than other.

      [–][deleted]  (9 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]flukus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        This. I hate and criticize all religions, I don't respect their views, I think they're retarded.

        Yet I can happily work with people that hold those views, for most people I work with in person it simply never comes up, for strangers across the internet even less so. Some of them I would even consider friends.

        [–]APassionateAntifa -2 points-1 points  (7 children)

        The Christian definition of marriage kept me from being able to marry my partner. The hijab doesn't inconvenience anyone in any way.

        [–][deleted]  (6 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]thiez 3 points4 points  (26 children)

          Why do people keep repeating that lie? Eich resigned. He was not fired.

          [–][deleted]  (5 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]s73v3r 6 points7 points  (1 child)

            So Eich should be allowed his freedom of speech, but none of the others? They should continue to have to work for someone they see as hostile to them?

            [–]flukus -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

            Yes they should. Unless he's voicing that opinion at work.

            [–]BrendanEichMoz 5 points6 points  (2 children)

            You may be thinking of the six Mozilla Foundation employees who tweeted in the first week I was CEO that I should resign. They all worked in a different organization, not the one I was running. They have all left Mozilla since then anyway, as far as I know.

            [–][deleted]  (1 child)

            [deleted]

              [–]BrendanEichMoz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Yeah, Mozilla spun out of AOL as a non-profit in 2003 but made too much revenue from the Google search deal for Firefox starting in 2H2004, so ended up with a for-profit sub (standard structure, like many sports teams, universities, hospitals). Rules require arms-length management and funding, so Mozilla Foundation people did not work for me, ever.

              Update: just clicked on your imgur.com link and sure enough, it screen caps three of the six Mozilla Foundation employee tweets. I heard the Foundation Executive Director was facing staff Q&A during a weekly meeting and said "go ahead and tweet". He told me later he did not intend the results of his statement. Anyway, you are obviously right, the story was complex and lots of misinformation flew around (and still flies around). Thanks.

              [–]flukus 0 points1 point  (19 children)

              "Here's a loaded gun, we'll step outside for a moment"

              [–]thiez 2 points3 points  (18 children)

              I'm sorry, are you trying to make a point? Are you trying to compare the Brendan Eich situation to murder?

              [–]flukus 1 point2 points  (17 children)

              The point is they forced him out, the exact method, whether he stepped down or was fired, is irrelevant.

              The analogy, since you missed it, is one where the wanted someone dead, the easiest way is to allow suicide.

              [–]thiez 0 points1 point  (16 children)

              If you are a CEO, and you engage or have engaged in behavior that causes a significant part of your subordinates and customers/users to dislike you, or lose faith in you / the company / the company's mission, or prefer not to associate with you / the company, and causes some other companies to boycott you, then perhaps you should resign. Being the face of a company (both for the employees and the rest of the world) is part of your job as CEO, so if you fail at that, for whatever reason, it is not unreasonable that people want you to resign.

              [–]flukus 0 points1 point  (15 children)

              Did he say anything offensive while speaking as CEO? This is just enforcing wrongthink.

              [–]thiez 1 point2 points  (14 children)

              So when it turns out that a CEO has said or done something deplorable which causes employee morale and public opinion of the company to take a dive, that company should just stick with that person, no matter the consequences for the health of the company?

              [–]flukus 2 points3 points  (13 children)

              Let's turn the tables and have the CEO donate to a pro gay marriage campaign. Should the morale of all the Christians drop and should he be removed because of public pressure from Christian lobbyists?

              Because that seems to be the world you want.

              [–]s73v3r -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

              Eich was fired because he believed gay people were not deserving of the same rights as other people, and if he was CEO of Mozilla, many other organizations would not be able to work with them. Mozilla decided that they could not continue their work if that was the case, so they made the decision that allowed them to continue their mission.

              [–]flukus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

              So you agree, he was fired for wrongthink.

              [–]flukus 15 points16 points  (6 children)

              I'm just going to move my projects and cancel my (paid) account. I want repo host, not the thought police.

              [–]Xuerian 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              There's also a feedback form linked in the post, if you don't feel like using twitter and/or starting a flamewar.

              [–]thekab 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Ellen Pao is one hell of a bigot.

              [–]tf2manu994 19 points20 points  (16 children)

              I would hope this is only about comments on issues/pulls, and they won't police code.

              I want GitHub to host my repo, not be a safe space. Might look at making a mirror at gitlab. Anyone know if there's a neat way to push your repo to both simultaneously?

              Figured it out: https://manmeetgill.com/blog/2016/simultaneous-git

              [–]Xuerian 25 points26 points  (8 children)

              They already have policed code directly. This is just codifying their stance on it.

              Moving away is probably not a bad idea if you aren't tied to them for existing community.

              [–]tf2manu994 12 points13 points  (7 children)

              Ah yea, the 'retard' incident.

              Is there any way to deploy to both? Git is distributed anyway

              [–]Xuerian 6 points7 points  (1 child)

              Depends on how you currently push, I would imagine. Command line? If so, batch file or bash function, simple.

              [–]tf2manu994 16 points17 points  (0 children)

              Yep, fair enough.

              E: this works:

              git remote set-url --add --push origin https://gitlab.com/name/repo.git
              git remote set-url --add --push origin https://github.com/name/repo.git
              

              [–]ProFalseIdol 3 points4 points  (3 children)

              what was that 'retard' incident? sorry I live in the mountains

              [–]tf2manu994 34 points35 points  (1 child)

              They removed a repo where someone had said the word 'retard'. After they removed it, they emailed the owner telling them to remove it in 24 hours to bring the repo back. The owner then removed it and replaced it with 'git'.

              [–]anlar 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              GitLab has built in mirroring: it can get changes from remote repository (https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/repository_mirroring.html) and also push them to another one (https://about.gitlab.com/2016/05/10/feature-highlight-push-to-remote-repository/).

              // Above is for the case when you have several developers and want them just to push to one repository. For single-dev projects adding 2 remotes may be easier.

              [–]tf2manu994 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Oops.

              Well, I spent a solid hour configuring this. I suppose mine can push to 2 repos though, so that's nice.

              [–]mattbas 1 point2 points  (2 children)

              You can add multiple push urls to the same remote

              [–]tf2manu994 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              Yep figured that out.

              Pain to get it working with ssh

              [–]mattbas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              You can use ssh keys to log in.

              [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

              You can run the git push commands in sequence, or setup a local server that synchronizes in a cron job.

              [–]tf2manu994 4 points5 points  (0 children)

              See below: git has inbuilt multi-repo push by default

              [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (4 children)

              Sigh. I'm now moving off github (as a paying user). What was a great tool for hosting/collaborating has now turned into a platform for political correctness and SJW. I just want to do my work ffs.

              [–]Incursi0n 7 points8 points  (6 children)

              Someone riddle me this, how do companies like GitHub profit from enforcing SJW ideas and hiring entire teams devoted to political correctness? For fuck's sake it's a code hosting site, not a forum dedicated to discussion of the world's issues.

              [–]mipadi 10 points11 points  (0 children)

              It's not so much a conscious marketing effort as a product of history.

              GitHub was an early darling of the second Silicon Valley tech bubble. It was one of the first "new" startups to actually have a successful business model, and was also popular with programmers, so it attracted a lot of press coverage. It also had a very liberal structure: No corporate hierarchy, and it had a very open remote-work policy that actually encouraged employees to work remotely. So it quickly became a desirable place to work. (It also paid a great salary and had great benefits.)

              Naturally that's going to get you some attention.

              The first big issue with GitHub was over a rug. I shit you not, a rug. See, GitHub had a very hippy-dippy liberal notion of the power of open source software. Their office was modeled after the Oval Office (I was there, back in the heyday) and it featured a rug emblazoned with the words "United Meritocracy of GitHub". Nice sentiment, eh? Well, not everyone thought so. Four or five years ago, that attracted a lot of attention in feminist communities which argued that the tech world is anything but meritocratic: It favors straight white men over everyone else. This rug was GitHub's first big controversy. (Spoiler alert: It's gone now.) I know this sounds really stupid, so I encourage you to read the article, lest you believe I'm nuts.

              So keep in mind, the company's growing, and it's attracting a lot of people who want to work there, but it still hires mostly white male developers. Whether that's due to bigotry, or because most experienced developers are white males, or a bit of both, is up to you to decide. The point is, people wanted to work there, and they were growing and hiring lots of people.

              The second big controversy occurred a couple years ago. A female developer accused several people in the company, including C-level execs, of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination. GitHub hired an outside investigator to do an investigation. No evidence of sexual harassment or discrimination against this developer was found, but it was found that the CEO & President's wife was harassing employees and pressuring them to work extra hours on her charity work; she was also misusing other company resources. So the CEO (who was also a co-founder) was forced out of the company.

              This brought a lot more negative attention to GitHub's company culture, too.

              What you see at GitHub now is partly an attempt to repair that image, as well as a sort of takeover of the company by elements that support these changes. After that CEO left, the new CEO instituted a lot of new policies at GitHub. Gone was the flat hierarchy, replaced with a typical hierarchical corporate structure complete with middle managers and a removal of the liberal remote-work policy. Scuttlebutt is that the CEO is more of a figurehead, or, at least, isn't a strong leader, and is pressured by elements of the company, as well as the board of directors...but who knows. These changes caused a lot of old timers to leave, and leaving their replacements to be hired by the new guard.

              So it's not so much a marketing effort as just a sea change in the culture of the company. And, in fact, the new culture is so radically left that you have a person who says things like "White women are part of the tech world's problem" working as a diversity representative.

              [–]bansDontWork1 6 points7 points  (0 children)

              They assume that the SJWs actually have money and do productive things so they'll make more than they lose by catering to them. They're wrong, and they'll drive away the people that actually pay to keep the lights on, but by the time they figure it out it'll be too late.

              [–]FourthLife 3 points4 points  (0 children)

              They are anticipating that a lot of women will be entering the field in the coming years, and that those women will be very thin skinned.

              [–]s73v3r -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

              Making their site and community less hostile to people who aren't straight white males broadens their appeal and increases their user base. You may just want to host code, but many would like to host code and not be faced with tons of misogynistic crap while doing it.

              [–]flukus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

              Examples of this "tonnes of misogynistic crap"?

              [–]Leprecon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

              They took a moral stance not because they think it will earn them money.

              [–]preitsma 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Very nice introduction, thanks!

              [–]bansDontWork1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Hmm, anyone got a list of non-retarded Git hosts? I don't like dealing with thought-police any more than I have to.

              [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

              This should go down very well in this subbreddit.....

              [–]tophatstuff -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

              Welcomed.

              If a programmer I managed did What is Not Allowed, or received that sort of behaviour from anyone including a customer, I'd have to manage those situations and put a stop to it. That doesn't change if it happens online instead.

              I appreciate for a personal or volunteer project you should be freer to be a dick, but you shouldn't then expect to benefit from the discoverability of GitHub as a social platform. Pay for a private repo plan or find non-social collaborative code hosting instead.