Are you guys fine with these new shenanigans from Github. I found a bug and wanted to check what has been the development on that, only to find out most of the discussion was hidden by github and requesting me to sign-in to view it.

It threw me straight back to when Microsoft acquired Github and the discussions around the future of opensource on a microsoft owned infrastructure, now microsoft is exploiting free work from the community to train its AI, and building walls around its product, are open source contributors fine with that ?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Reawake9179@lemmy.kde.social 39 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I'm fine with it so alternatives will be used more in the future.

[–] intrepid@lemmy.ca 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm not as optimistic. Some people will complain and move to alternative platforms. But the vast majority won't care and continue using the abusive platform, forcing the rest to use it sometimes. The best example for this is Reddit and Lemmy.

[–] Reawake9179@lemmy.kde.social 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I'm not forced into anything, i can choose to not contribute anything to Reddit and still read it via alternative frontends to keep user number measurement low.

I found a place here and i choose to contribute here with people like me going the extra mile just because we can and we have the options. The majority can stay over there, some of these people made my blood boil too often anyway and i'm far better off with like minded people.

I'm using Lemmy and Mastodon and so many open source projects because i believe in it and want to support the cause.

[–] hiramfromthechi@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is why enshittification might be a good thing ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[–] mark@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

if buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing. How can you steal something that the customer cannot own?

By stealing it? You dont have to own something to steal it. Or maybe I'm reading that wrong. Lol it's a very interesting take but I like the spirit of it... And it made me laugh. Cool 😎

[–] toototabon@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Using the first entry for steal on the English wiktionary:

To take illegally, or without the owner's permission, something owned by someone else without intending to return it.

So, if you can't actually own stuff, you can't (by definition) steal it.

I get your point, and this more of an ^AcKsHuALly^ type of argument, but it's an fun way of begging the question of what "I own this" means in today's society.

[–] mark@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I love a friendly debate 😀:

The statement says How can you steal something that the customer cannot own?. You can definitely steal it if "you" aren't the customer. And you can steal it from a "customer" even if the customer doesn't own it and someone else does. And you can steal if even if you are the customer, because you aren't the owner. The only time you can't steal it is if you are the owner, because you own it.

The definition of "steal" you mention seems to be proving the point I'm making. Something can be stolen if the person stealing it isn't the owner, which is the case in the first three examples I mentioned above.

The statement is an odd play on words and loaded with assumptions that are left up to the reader, which is why it's super weird to use it to try to prove the point the author was trying to make.