Thing is, the broader public don't care. The difference between gitlab and gmail is primarily that developers care more about this stuff and value their code more than most people care about their email. They are also much more informed in the matter, most using gmail haven't got a clue.
No, they only care when the tools they are using are targeted. Otherwise, they couldn't care less.
We have tracking on websites and in apps on an industrial scale - built by developers in technology companies. We even have tracking of school kids courtesy of ChromeOS. When have developers ever shown any care about that? When have they ever spoken out about that? They're more likely to rush to defend that software and the company that built it: It's not being used to build profiles, or the data is aggregated and anonymous.
Presumably, if GitLab tracked behaviour 'anonymously' and in aggregate form, that would all be fine? Didn't think so. The hypocrisy that runs through the programming profession when it comes to online tracking really knows no end.
However, giving a third party script, potentially unvetted, access to the crown jewels of the company I work for? No fucking way.
Different. Not a double standard.
Gitlab can't.
It’s a shame that so many innovations are being squashed in communication because of the “free” price for cloud solutions.
Google is learning so much about students thanks to this program.
I understand the reticence towards third party telemetry, but refusing basic interaction tracking for a product you pay for is just hurting yourself, even if you're already satisfied with the service. You don't go to the doctor for a checkup and then refuse bloodwork. Obviously there are rules around privacy for medical records that don't exist for interaction tracking. But I don't think the solution should be to get rid of tracking entirely, it should be to extend reasonable privacy rights and protections to our online data.
Gitlab could have collected anonymous data, with opting out of collection as the default, and promised not to sell it if they seriously believed it was about improving their product. Plenty of products record telemetry data only if you opt in to the program. Users understand and often accept that. That approach would have generated fewer headlines.
No amount of vague promises over how good you will be and how nice you'll treat your users' information should be enough to make this acceptable. We have a huge body of evidence informing us that trust is a fundamentally bad idea when it comes to a corporation.
In GitLab's case, developers weren't. Their C-level executives simply overruled them and forced the change.
If that were the case, Gitlab could have simply asked for permission.
For me, the concern was the value of the content. It might as well have been my bank saying they were going to start embedding disqus threads.
My point still stands though.
https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/gitlab-com/feature-comparis...
If only this worked with giant corps. FB has around 2.4 billion MAU and a few nerd rants won't be noticed the next time they screw the user and a handful complain.
Goldman Sachs valued it close to $3b.
Why Gitlab wanted to do this I have no idea, sounds like some marketing people came up with such idea "because everyone is doing this"?
Tracking wasn't going to bring much revenue, if any, so they could just get rid of that, trying to turn it into some positive PR. The cynic in me tells me that if they smell any significant money from tracking they would tell HN and the rest to back off (or would added some convoluted way to opt-out from tracking).
There was a huge uproar when Facebook first launched "Beacon", and it was cancelled as a result.
Unfortunately it just morphed into the Facebook Platform and eventually the Pixel. Same pig with different lipstick.