The new model pioneered by AirBNB and Uber is to break laws under the guise of "growth hacking" and then change the laws later once you're entrenched.
You won't be compensated. Corporations write the laws.
If you read the license you put on your project (and/or the GitHub Terms of Service), you wouldn't expect that.
If it’s anything but public domain, there’s probably at least a requirement for credit.
I accept google's and Facebooks terms, and I still don't expect to be tracked across the internet to pay for the services they give me. Basically: my expectation is that companies aren't behaving as badly as their terms allow them to.
Being credited for your work is a form of compensation. Nearly all open source licenses require proper attribution. Github is just violating the open source licenses of nearly all people that posted their code to Github itself, which is a huge breach of trust.
Huge leap of logic to assume what license another user publishes their code under. A charitable reading here of chovybizzass's comment leads me to the understanding that they are publishing their code under a license that requires compensation if used, this code can be published to GitHub as well. Would it be stupid? Probably. But even more stupid would be to produce MIT-licensed code and then complain about not being compensated.