Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattlondon | Hacker News Reader

Personally I have used GitHub pages and cloudflare pages for hosting static sites and have been very happy with them considering the zero cost involved.

I don't think there is much difference between paying nearlyfreespeech (which I have done in the past) Vs using GitHub or cloudflare - you are still reliant on a third party for actual hosting. I don't really see any value in self-hosting myself - apart from nerdy satisfaction etc, I don't see the need.

The important part in my mind is the fact that I am manually controlling the assets - the HTML the images etc. Simple files on disk.

The git integration with GitHub and cloudflare though is obviously a huge boon though as now I have an off-site backup, and publishing is even more seamless than the old FTP/sftp days - just push to master from within vscode where you are editing the files anyway and it'll be live in 30 seconds (as well as backed up).

View on HN

A huge advantage of GH / CF is that your site has a strong chance of outliving you, if that's something you care about.

If you're self hosting, either at home or on a VPS, you have to worry about domains expiring and credit cards being cancelled, which is inevitably going to happen if you don't have a succession plan in place. You could probably solve it with a bunch of lawyering, but that's expensive.

Free services don't have this problem. They can still go away, it's not a 100% guarantee, but it's a "might" versus a "definitely will"

How many free hosts from 20 years are still alive? Not many.

20 years ago was 2006. The iPhone wasn’t out yet and the internet was far from how big it is today. These days GH and CF are giants that are synonymous for code storage and the domain resolution respectively. So it’s rather unlikely that these household names of the internet will go down the drain in the next decade.

!RemindMe 10 years

Shoutout 250m.com, you’re not forgotten

When you pay for something, you stop being the product and become the customer instead. That's a big deal.

I've never understood this mentality. Why can't they still sell your data after you pay them? Porque no los dos?

So never bother with anything, am I right? Anything could be bad. Why eat the burger instead of the cyanide pill when there could be cyanide in the burger?

and almost every paid service too. Paid or unpaid is not a useful characteristic for determining if something will sell my data.

Clearly nobody thinks “paid = never selling data” and I have a hard time believing you actually think their argument is that simple and singular.

If something is paid + open source then you have a good starting point incentive wise for the provider but also if they mess with things under the hood someone will inevitably call it out and you can act accordingly. You also now have more options - you can fork it yourself, someone else may fork it and you can jump ship, etc.

The subthread was arguing about "paid," and you chose to make an argument about "paid + open source" because it was easier (you have no opponent), and then you chose to be condescending about it.

You’re right I accidentally added that element. But the core of my comment doesn’t change even if I remove that. Nobody thinks that “paid” = “not selling data” by default. And for them to act like that was asserted was a bit absurd.

Also I was not being condescending, I was expressing frustration. There has been a serious trend lately of people doing the worst possible interpretations of people’s comments and pulling “well actually…” style responses that borderline seem canned.

That’s where being open-source is the hedge. I’m paying for your service and you still fuck me over, I have the option to self host. You start open-source and then start making the product worse? I’m forking and maintaining the old version.

With a free service it's given because they have to monetize end of the day. For paid services different businesses will have different strategies. Some have a solid business model and are content with it, some want to differentiate themselves using privacy, some simply don't want to take the reputation risk that comes with moves like this. Will there be some sleazy bastards who take your money and your data (cough cough gith*)? Sure, but they will get found out eventually and astute people will be able to steer away.

Watch "The Social Dilemma" carefully, and you will understand it.

The problem with Big Tech is not that they "selling your data". This wouldn't be that profitable to them. The problem is that they make more money by having tons of users and being able to build really accurate consumer behavior models, which then can be used to be used as a way to change mass behavior.

The most direct way is of course by having hyper targeted advertising, but this also affects people in many other ways in ways that are not to the benefit of the user: consider how the applications are designed to maximize engagement instead of being made to help users directly achieve their goals.

When you are the one paying for the service, companies succeed when they serve you better, and the money they can get from you directly is order of magnitudes more than what they'd get by trying to monetize your attention indirectly.

When you're the paying customer, it's possible (but not guaranteed) that they could see privacy as product differentiation.

In other words, if company A and B both offer you a product for $N, but A protects your privacy better than B, then A might get more customers. This competitive advantage can be an incentive for privacy.

However, there definitely limitations. If the value of this competitive advantage is less than the revenue they make by selling your data, then it's not a strong enough incentive. It also only works if consumers care about privacy and take the time to factor it into their purchasing decision.

If it's impossible for you to be profitable without abusing your users in some way, then of course you're going to do so.

If it is possible for you to respect your users, then at least better behavior remains on the table.

Not really, not for 1¢/day. Most massive platforms that I use for free (Google Workspace, Cloudflare Pages, even Oracle Cloud always free tier) have outlived many low cost solutions I tried.

It used to be the case in the past, perhaps, but not now.

Now you just get fscked twice.

However, not paying does not mean that you necessarily become "the product".

Offering loss-leading products is a common business strategy and I'm perfectly okay taking advantage of this for hosting needs that fit a vendor's free tier.

Static hosting is very cheap to offer and gathering free tier users will gain developer mind-share, which helps the vendor can sell their truly money-making products. To pick a clear-cut example: AWS Lambda does not collect any additional data on free tier usage compared to paid usage.

I do the same for my blog [1]

[1] https://gigatexal.blog

Same, but with GitLab pages.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com