It never sat well with me how GitHub itself was not open-source. Is it a fundamental mistrust of the very technology that made the platform possible?
Regarding it's current, although waning, top choice for hosting open source software, I certainly do think we are starting to see the trade offs the open source community has been making.
There are tons of hosted GIT solutions. I've started using sourcehut [1] which seems like an rising platform that is also opensource. Hopefully youtube-dl ends up there instead of risking it on another big provider.
[1] https://sr.ht/
They don't have a mantra of all information wants to be free, and indeed their entire business model relies on hosting private repos.
I understand people wanting to host their open source on a server that's also open source. There's an argument it makes business sense if the closed source setup creates a long-term drift to GitLab or elsewhere. Nevertheless, I don't see the closed source as a contradiction.
You can love open source while producing a mix of open and closed source. Building a sustainable business often means being selective about it and seeing open source as a tool you can benefit from (enlightened self-interest), rather than an ideology you must adhere to at all times.
Which at the time of writing read as follows "It's not open source because the open source "community" is a liability and you want them far away from you at all times.
I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic or anything. Just look at how maintainers are treated for a week and you'll see exactly what I mean."