Tell HN: GitHub – “This comment has been minimized. Sign in to view” | Hacker News Reader

Tell HN: GitHub – “This comment has been minimized. Sign in to view”

21 pointsagluszak25 comments

While browsing this GH issue[1] on my phone I noticed that some comments are collapsed. Apparently GitHub now requires users to be signed in to view them. That's yet another dark pattern employed by yet another webpage. A few days ago I wrote about Reddit[2]. It's really disturbing that the service which is absolutely foundational to the modern open source movement is becoming more and more hostile towards its users.

PS I know there are alternatives like SourceHut, but unfortunately GitHub and GitLab are the mainstream and probably will continue to be the biggest OSS hosting providers.

1 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/20041 2 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33202034

View on HN

I work at GitHub. This is not new, and I promise it’s not a dark pattern.

As a sibling comment noted, someone with sufficient permissions in this repo used the “minimize” function on these comments. This is normally intended for disruptive or off-topic messages, but ultimately it’s up to the owners of the repository how they make use of our moderation tools.

https://docs.github.com/en/communities/moderating-comments-a...

Before I worked here I had no idea how much GitHub invests in platform health. It’s nearly invisible to most users but just like every other part of the internet that draws eyeballs we are under an enormous flood of spam at all times.

IMO It’s a testament to how well the system works that many years after this functionality was introduced this is the first time you encountered it.

Sigh.

This is yet more gated content on the hopes someone or something does the right thing.

I deleted my account when GH demanded a separate license for everything I had (for that ml crap you made, no less).

My answer in dealing with GH is to create fake emails, do the register bullshit, and get what I need, and throw the acct away.

I'll save my stuff for my GL instance, or go to sourcehut.

Excuses to gatekeep can rightly die in a fire, and let the crucible sort it out.

> when GH demanded a separate license for everything I had

Can you elaborate on this? Do you mean explicitly demanded, or do you just mean the way they asserted that licenses didn't matter for Copilot?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13597340

This was written about Feb 8 2017, when Github changed their license to require ANY content to be dual-licensed to the following:

    Solely to allow us to provide the Service and to host 
    the Content you upload to the Website without violating 
    any rights you have in it, you grant GitHub and our 
    successors a nonexclusive, worldwide, transferable, 
    fully-paid and royalty-free license to use, reproduce, 
    display, modify, adapt, distribute, and perform the 
    Content in connection with rendering the Website and 
    providing the Service.

User:nsqe said they helped write it and said they would "revise it to clear up confusion". Naturally, that was never done.

Instead, I would argue that this change was what allowed them to monetize so much open source under various licenses into their own proprietary "forever license". That's what makes Copilot actually doable.

And naturally, if you migrated code to GH, then it's your 'fault' for not recognizing that any uploads to GH forever-dual license.

If they did not have this clause, they would be in breach of copyright as soon as they display any source code listing to anyone (including logged-in users). If other repository services don't have something to the same effect in their ToC, it's a sign that they don't have a competent legal department.

That's completely not true.

If it's a FLOSS or similar copyright license, they'd be using the same copyright to display that copy. They don't need special permissions.

If a person uploads a non-permissive license (or sets a license that is as such), then they would be in the rights to set it to private and charge, or to remove it.

It's very suspicious that they do not force a license set, nor remove repos for no license.

When the code is under a non-permissive license, that means by definition that GitHub cannot derive any usage rights from it. However, displaying the source code on the website (even to a logged-in user! even to the original rights holder!) is a type of "usage". Therefore they would be in breach of copyright. ToS is the only place where they can derive the necessary usage rights.

In certain jurisdictions, usage rights may be conferred by an implied-in-fact contract. But for a company like GitHub that operates almost globally, it's probably a very bad idea to rely on local legal interpretations of the scope of implied-in-fact contracts.

2 things about this.

1. The user was led to their misconception because the ui did not provide any better conception.

Perhaps the label should add the words "... by a repo admin" or something.

2. This still does not explain why there should be any difference between an anonymous and a logged-in user for merely reading.

If the repo owner is to be given the power to hide comments, why should a logged-in but otherwise unspecial user be able to override that? If a logged-in but otherwise unspecial user should have the option to unhide, why only when they are logged in?

From the Github docs [0]

  > Organization moderators, and anyone with write access to a repository, can hide comments on issues, pull requests, and commits.

  > If a comment is off-topic, outdated, or resolved, you may want to hide a comment to keep a discussion focused [...]

[0] https://docs.github.com/en/communities/moderating-comments-a...

Does not explain why there is any difference between a logged-in user and any other for reading.

Even on HN you have to be logged-in to see dead threads and comments.

You haven't really explained the reason.

I would guess this helps prevent spam by hiding the spam comments from bots that may index it. Indexing bots aren't usually logged in.

Indexing would have been my first thought as well, but since I don't work for neither HN or Github, any answer I'd give would be speculation.

That would be something that matters to github not to a repo owner. Why would that be a repo owner tool if that were the reason for it?

It doesn't add up.

Giving repo owners moderation tools is "really disturbing"?

Treating logged-in users differently for merely reading is,

It's the same way HN does it in this case, feels fine to me.

You may not mind it, but that doesn't explain what justifies it.

In this case I don’t think it’s as bad as you make it look. Comments are hidden by repo owners because they are off-topic. They might be considered similar to HN [DEAD] comments, which (correct me if I’m wrong) also require an account with showdead on to be viewed.

The way we respond to GitHub’s increasing abuse (as well as continued willing collaboration with those who operate concentration camps in the USA) is to stop using GitHub.

Don’t log in, and don’t collaborate on software there. Email users directly.

Does gitlab do something similar? Might not be fair to lump them in together.

Github, the Internet Explorer of version control

Why don't you and I start a new gitHUB compEetitor..?:-*

I'm Saying this only partLy in jest. I have noticed seveRAl similar patterns across other websites and find them absolutely abhorrent. I find the current web can DO much better!:)

There's plenty of ROom for expansion.:)

There's also something to be said about MSFTT involveMent in the open source moVEment. They have been sedentary so far. ;) And GOOG has takken the leed.

-Vipul:)

Can we fold this comment? :)

And to be constructive...

1) Yes, this is why for example Codeberg exists.

2) Kudos to Gitea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com