L6489afSMNLNFDa

Outside the ~4 hours I spent setting up GitLab (for the first time) 3+ years ago, I've spent an average of perhaps 10 minutes per month maintaining it (and the runner on a separate server).

(And that's literally only because I choose to update it manually since it's usually offline for about 15-30 minutes during updates...)

Yep. We use it self-hosted but the only reason for us to pay would be to import groups (instead of just users) from LDAP. Hate to say that (and basic stuff like enforced approval flows) isn't worth $19/user/month...

Unfortunately, they know this, and as a result they've actually been making more and more user-hostile changes (like bumping features up to higher plans, introducing virtually all of their new features as premium, and just generally ignoring their supposed pricing and monetization strategy in favor of $$$).

Except that projects are namespaced under their owner, so you'd need to hijack the owner's account. They don't appear to have been proposing deleting users (or groups), just projects.

Other than that, you can fork whatever you want today...

Which, of course, was entirely their goal: to get more public content to increase the network effect.

I would argue that choosing a closed platform like GitHub where users must sign their data and more over to and which (a) has absolutely no provision for contributing in any way without signing up (and thus giving them a wider "user base"), (b) is an entirely proprietary, for-profit platform built on the backs of open-source, and (c) is owned by a company with such a long history of ill will towards open-source; is worse.

(Not that I think GitLab - at least in its cloud form - is much better, but alas.)

They're absolutely getting gamed (by sticking clickbait keywords into the meta description or invisible content or even just in plain text at the bottom of the page - you'd think they'd have learned their lesson on Youtube but alas). This doesn't change that.

> The fact that Visa already stopped being a payment processor for Pornhub/Mindgeek once in 2020 due to a NYT article about CSM shows that Visa was aware of and had control over how strictly Mindgeek/Pornhub polices the uploads for CSAM.

Yes, which shows that when Visa was aware that Pornhub was (allegedly?) breaking the law, they stopped providing service to them. Only once Pornhub tightened their policies significantly (and removed all of their content from unverified users) did Visa resume...

And it definitely is about the existence of it, actually; one of the allegations is specifically that Pornhub had child porn, failed to police it, and Visa knew both of those things.

> the people that are harassing innocent third parties due to a personal crusade.

> Absent punishment, everybody will just drag all bystanders (from around any scene, there is somebody that disagrees with anything) into a court.

What a great description of the dysfunction of the US judicial system.

More like going after McDonald's/Visa because their franchisees/PornHub are letting people deal drugs/child porn in the building/website (because it brings paying customers/ad revenue into their place of business) and McDonald's/Visa knew about it...

(I don't necessarily agree with the allegation, but that is the allegation.)

If this standard was applied perfectly, large competitors would actually follow the laws... just like large businesses do today with laws that are actually enforced (MUCH more so than small businesses especially)... and why do you think they wouldn't be the ones trying to sabotage the upstart competitors? That's historically much more likely (although I'm sure it would in fact happen in both directions).

Moreover, is that bad? Is punishing people when they do something illegal bad?

If you belonged to a group of people who believe that such companies shouldn't exist, then you should lobby for it to be outlawed, not try to rule by (small!) minority.