Why I don't support or contribute to GitHub repositories (2014)

A pretty good article about how people form opinions first and then search for reasons after.

"DCMA is censorship", DCMA is being used as it should, it is not for github to decide how DCMA works, there is supposed to be a takedown, and then a response to the takedown, and then time wasting occurs at that point as legal matters usually entail. This applies to any hosting company within the US.

"Users must provide a name on signup" like any other sign up process with any other host (if you couldn't tell this was the case from the signup screen, then well) "GitHub takes no liability for account security" forgetting the part where it says "[if its the user's fault]" "github can terminate accounts whenver" is standard for a bloody obvious reason: you never want to have that "oh BUT YOUR RULES DIDNT SAY I COULDN'T DO X" conversation with anyone when X is something that no self-respecting adult should do

etc etc

"You shall defend and indemnify GitHub" once again missing the "[if its your content that caused us to get into this shitstorm]", you can still sue github without that clause coming into play

There are always "bad" sides to things. Yet I personally see the good parts of GitHub largely outweighing the "bad" parts.

> GitHub wants to control your projects on GitHub

So because they have become popular GitHub now wants to control everyone? Sounds more paranoid than anything else.

> developers have become enslaved by a large company telling them how to do their project management

GitHub provides limited ways to manage your project, but it's not mandatory! Disable the issue tracker and wiki, and use whatever management tools you want. Also just because he doesn't like the project management tools GitHub provides, doesn't imply that everyone has been enslaved and forced to use it. It can be very useful and comes at no cost and not setup required for Open Source projects.

> Censorship

Such an overused word. GitHub is not obligated to protect your rights for freedom of speech. They have Terms of Service and if they judge something as not fitting for their platforms, they have the right to remove it. That is not censorship.

Whether the DMCA requests where legitimate or not, is in my opinion something lawyers should deal with and not random partially biased internet users.

> Terms of Service

The goal of ToS is to protect the company which in turn protects the whole user base from "bad" users. Again the ToS are not here to provide you security or protection, but it lays out how you can use the service and what rights GitHub keeps in case you're determined to be a "bad" user.

What I'm missing from the post is an alternative - if not GitHub what then? Because I'm sure you'll find similar points for any other Git repository hosting company, which leaves you with self-hosting. But for self-hosting people usually forget to calculate for the time spent setting things up, maintaining it and making sure everything is secure. Especially regarding security I'd personally trust a company more than co-worker who knows something about Linux and servers or myself.

Reminds me of conversations I've had with people who don't understand how tax brackets and insurance premiums work. They get angry and scared based on their own flawed perspective. Everything the author cited looks like standard practice, just slightly obfuscated by legal language.