GitHub removes IF_MS_BUYS_GITHUB_IMMA_OUT repository from Trending | Hacker News Reader

GitHub removes IF_MS_BUYS_GITHUB_IMMA_OUT repository from Trending

github.com

75 pointshmyr044 comments

Like I posted on that Github issue, they've been editing opposing opinions to call themselves "trolls." It's known that abusive repos get removed from trending/explore, and that's as clear cut as abuse as you can get.

EDIT: 2. Content Restrictions

You agree that you will not under any circumstances upload, post, host, or transmit any content that:

1. is unlawful or promotes unlawful activities;

2. is or contains sexually obscene content;

3. is libelous, defamatory, or fraudulent;

4. is discriminatory or abusive toward any individual or group;

5. contains or installs any active malware or exploits, or uses our platform for exploit delivery (such as part of a command and control system); or

6. infringes on any proprietary right of any party, including patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, right of publicity, or other rights.

I agree that editing other people's comments isn't the best thing to do, but the README clearly states that those types of comments weren't welcome.

In addition, serious opinions like issue #60 weren't edited, only issues like #77, which literally said:

"Dear Beef, Beef. Thanks, Beef" -- https://github.com/upend/IF_MS_BUYS_GITHUB_IMMA_OUT/issues/7...

EDIT: ... and IMO calling an obvious troll a "troll" isn't defamatory. What GitHub is doing is clearly censorship, nothing short of it.

Wait a second. Repository owners can edit people's comments on their issue tracker? That's insane.

Yes, normally to fix the formatting when they post long sections of code/logs which are otherwise very difficult to read. And not just repo owners either.

It's usually not abused, and when it is the moderation team will step in like shown here. It works pretty well.

Posts that have been modified are well visibly labeled as "Edited", together with a history of changes, so there is no "sneak-editing".

Perhaps. Close them and lock the issue, don't join the same "trolling" fashion.

> 3. is libelous, defamatory, or fraudulent;

> 4. is discriminatory or abusive toward any individual or group;

Nailed it. To close an issue, even to edit the title might be fine.

Changing the person's words so it seems like they are admitting to being a troll is insane and a clear attempt to discredit that individual.

Considering that some people use GitHub as a resume, the owner of that repo deserves far worse punishment that just being dropped from "tending, IMHO.

How that repo fits any of those points?

He's editing issues that he's closed to read "im a troll." against the original issue writer's initial content. That falls under 4.

I don't think that counts as abuse or discrimination. That would diminish the power of those terms.

I don't get what's the fuss about? I always thought "Trending" repositories is for code not for airing your opinion.

Someone else can create a "IF_MS_BUYS_GITHUB_IMMA_IN" and probably have thousands of stars as well because the topic is itself binary in nature: you are either in or out. And then what? What would that prove? Is this some sort of popularity contest about who gets more stars? If your intention is to air your opinion, you have social networks for that. But this looks more like a misuse of the platform to me.

Github is a company not a public service institution. They have their reasons for selling to Microsoft. You may agree or disagree with the decision and you have all the reasons to chose to stay or leave. Heck, you might even go for their competitors or create one yourself. But this is honestly just immature.

My guess is it's removed for all the toxicity and hate being spewed in the issues.

For instance this comment about the new CEO: "Why are you such sniveling waste of human excrement and what original sin did humanity commit to deserve you?"

Why would anyone want to read such stuff when browsing "trending"?

From the readme: As ironic as it may seem, it makes sense to keep this evacuation center right here on GitHub. For now at least. If they shut this down, it will only validate our exodus.

It's like they want to flamebait in order to be shut down.

The repo appears to be actively seeking conflict/flamewar. So while it doesn't disappear it isn't promoted. That seems sensible even if not everyone will agree.

It is also precisely the same approach to the problem the HN is taking.

And it is so simple as; If you don't like Github, then leave. But don't rally the troops over every little misunderstanding

Requiem for GitHub (2016)

http://hintjens.com/blog:111

I don’t really see how that article is relevant here?

Stop giving this GH repo attention and let it die already.

I'm guessing the reason the repository is so popular is that people are worried about what Microsoft might do after acquiring GitHub. Things like... censoring content they disapprove of, for example.

Do you think Microsoft ordered them to remove this repo, or that their existing moderation team did?

It seems likely to me that a few people might have reported the issue editing stuff to GitHub, and that could've triggered this honestly.

If I could figure out how I would report the repo.

I imagine: https://github.com/contact/report-abuse

Worried people are free to choose another service provider.

This is just childish show of immature people.

Commercial business did commercial M&A with another business.

Those people are trying to do outcry for something they never owned.

If there was no network effect, sure.

But because there is worried people have to make sure enough leave the platform to destroy that network effect.

Good on them. The response to this has been really, sadly as expected, immature

This should be removed from HN. If you dislike Github because Microsoft acquired it, then migrate to GitLab. There is no point on this fanatic and paranoid dramatization; It adds nothing to the Open Source productive community.

Sigh...

The repo's readme is melodramatic and entitled. If you don't agree with GitHub's direction, and have already made your objections known to them, then move somewhere else. Or you know, perhaps pay to host your own source control and ticket system.

It's really disappointing how childish the response to this purchase has been.

Yet another proof that giving people something for free never pays off. People will always complain, and developers are the worse.

Just because it's free doesn't remove our right to complain about it.

Complaining isn't the best outcome however. Learning how to use git in a distributed environment probably is the right option.

I'm not disputing your "right to complain". I'm sure there's some N-th amendment for that. If to quote more authoritative sources: "You're not wrong, you're just an Ahole" [0].

[0] I'm not referring to "you" but to whoever created that clownish repo.

This tweet is interesting:

https://twitter.com/UpEnd_org/status/1003936552840515584

The difference between the old ceo and the new ceo is pretty stark, at least on a superficial - just looking at the profile pics & names - level. Like the original CEO uses an IRCish internet handle and a bad picture taken on a webcam, unshaven and wearing oakleys indoors. The new guy uses his full name and he has a professional photograph and is well manicured.

I've never paid much attention to Github's political struggles over the years and have been a loyal (paying) customer for a very long time, so I can't say if the new guy will be worse than the old guy or not. But I will say this: One of these guys looks like he runs a website for coders based on the version control system invented by the linux guy.

Microsoft's been a top developer for a while now, the new CEO is a top developer because of the stars/attention his "Hello Github!" repo is getting. I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure the outgoing CEO was high on that list too.

Also worth noting that the list is limited on the topright to "Daily."

It has begun.

In other news; water is wet.

This is GitHub after all, it's not like they're new to censorship.

Unfortunately. GitHub used to be so strongly against censorship that they preferred financing a week of expensive DDoS mitigation over removing a repository. Two years ago, maintainers of open-source projects wrote open letters to GitHub, and GitHub listened. Sadly the company has changed a lot since then.

I can see the repo, it's not censored.

It's there, but GitHub as a company has a habit of language policing projects they have nothing to do with under the threat of banning or removal.

Remember WebM for retards?

So yeah, not surprised that GitHub employees have free reign to do whatever their feels are telling them to do at any given time.

Who's saying you can't see the repo?

Everyone here and in the issue complaining about censorship, duh

Sick people.

https://github.com/upend/IF_MS_BUYS_GITHUB_IMMA_OUT/issues/7...

Fighters!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com