Re:Github restricts public Faceswap repo to logged-in users
by sandov on Sunday February 17, 2019 @01:39PM
(#19185996)
- McDonalds food is unhealthy, we shouldn't eat it.
- You don't have a god-given right to take advantage of a company's food to make you more healthy[...]
This is basically the argument you're making. I agree with the premise: We don't have a right to take advantage of a company or forcing them to host anything, but we can also evaluate their quality and their level of professionalism, and choose one company or the other based on that. This thread is just pointing out that GitHub is not trustworthy and they lack professionalism when it comes to deciding what can be accepted or not in their platform.
Re:Github restricts public Faceswap repo to logged-in users
by vertex-four on Sunday February 17, 2019 @02:11PM
(#19186215)
Sure - I'll choose GitHub based on this and other well-publicised "incidents". I don't see any evidence of a lack of professionalism - in fact, I see a company attempting to follow at least some definition of an ethical code, whether that is as a result of internal or external pressure.
Unlike, say, the phone network, it doesn't actually cost you anything more to throw up a git repository on any number of free-speech-supporting websites, including many that offer substantially the same features as GitHub. You can still reach the same people without dragging your own cable half way across the planet - you just don't get to steal someone else's reputation in order to make it easier to do so.
The other side of things is that many websites actually want (algorithmic) editorial control over what their users wind up seeing because that's more profitable for them, and if they want that, they're definitely in a position where choosing to promote content is a direct reflection on the company even by your standards. GitHub is, as far as I'm aware, not one of these companies though.