Story

Github staff Jake Boxer disables #GamerGate operation disrespectful nod repository

Preview

What? (Score: 1, Interesting)

by kwerle@pipedot.org on 2014-10-05 07:12 (#2T3S)

Last night (October 3) Github developer Jake Boxer disabled the GamerGate github repository containing documents for "Operation Disrespectful Nod". Which contained documents for a letter writing campaign to advertisers for the publishers of the game media articles declaring gamers dead just over a month ago. Here's a link to an image of the removal request for if/when the original tweet is eventually removed.
What?

OK, there is someone named Jake. There was a github repo. There were documents? There is something called "Operation Disrespectful Nod"?

"Which contained documents for a letter writing campaign to advertisers for the publishers of the game media articles declaring gamers dead just over a month ago." is not a sentence. Or at least is a horrible one. But specifically:

documents for a letter writing campaign (what does that mean?)
to advertisers (so - letters to advertisers?)
for the publishers of game media articles (so... uh... game mags and/or review websites?)
declaring gamers dead (nope - you lost me. are all gamers dead? I'm not dead, so I don't think that's what you mean.)
just over a month ago. (uh... something happened just over a month ago. No link. Did gamers die? Or was the repo deleted? Or was that when the repo was created? Huh?)

After clicking a few links, none of this is much clearer - except there is lots of drama. Most of it sounds mostly imagined.

GitHub was hosting a public repo that they didn't want to host, so they nuked it. So... "free service refuses service to someone." News at 11?

Re: What? (Score: 2, Insightful)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-05 09:33 (#2T3V)

GitHub was hosting a public repo that they didn't want to host, so they nuked it. So... "free service refuses service to someone." News at 11?
You are totally right. GitHub is a private company and can host whatever it wants. GitHub can be biased. GitHub can play it save. GitHub can pamper PC. GitHub can pull whatever it wants. TOS violation or not. But just wave this away with "News at 11"?

pipdedot is a privately funded public discussion website. It is totally withing the rights of the maintainer to ban the user kwerle, even though he did not anything wrong, did not violate pipedot's TOS in any way. But... the owners here have any right to be biased. If they want you gone, they can ban you on a whim. If this happens.... News at 12?

Re: What? (Score: 1, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-05 14:49 (#2T40)

Well yeah, exactly, business as usual. Neither site owes you anything, period. I really, really don't see your point. These aren't public trusts or government services. They're little experiments that happened to have let you come in and play for a while. How could anyone NOT know that? How can you complain when the free lunch ends?

Re: What? (Score: 2, Insightful)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-05 15:35 (#2T41)

Where did I or anyone else here say that GitHub or pipedot owes me/us anything? I thought I made clear that both sites would be totally in the right to ban whomever for whatsoever reason they want. And who complains that a free lunch ends? I doubt that anyone would have said anything, if GitHub would have announced: Sorry guys, our business model is not profitable enough, therefore we close our services in a week from now. Please, get all the stuff you need from our servers before that date. This is not what happened. They closed a project, which did not in any way violate their TOS. They did it for purely political reasons. I want to stress it again: Totally within their rights to do. But doing it this way and for the given reason clearly makes it news. Especially on an IT site like pipedot. Sites like GitHub partly live from the trust of their users. May I quote another A.C.:
We need to know which solutions we can trust with our data, and which we cannot.

If a public repo can be removed in such a manner, apparently without any sort of due process, then it could very well happen to a private one.
Exactly. But not only that. Some of us, me inclusive, also have our political views. And also rightfully so. With its actions GitHub needlessly chose a side and now has to live with the consequences. In my personal view GitHub chose the wrong side. You might not believe me, but: No hard feelings about that, it really is GitHub's decision to make. However, no hard feelings does not mean that I want to support them further in any way. Fortunately not much of a decision for me to make, I have a GitHub account, because I once helped in a project, which is hosted there, but I have no project of my own on GitHub. If I had, I would now migrate to Gitorious. And this would be my decision. An informed decision I can only make because it is here and on other sites discussed and not just waved away as:
So... "free service refuses service to someone." News at 11?

Moderation

Time Reason Points Voter
2014-10-05 17:40 Insightful +1 vanderhoth@pipedot.org

Junk Status

Not marked as junk