FaceDeer

I find a ton of uses for quick Python scripts hammered out with Bing Chat to get random stuff done.

It’s also super useful when brainstorming and fleshing out stuff for the tabletop roleplaying games I run. Just bounce ideas off it, have it write monologues, etc.

Actually, you can do exactly that. Fork them.

You can’t force the people who are using Github to follow you, of course. But that’s every individual’s choice.

You think Microsoft is the only “evil corporation” among these? That’s very naive. Any hosting service will deplatform users when they can see a profit to be made from doing so.

“We” as in the conversation as a whole. You joined an ongoing thread.

So we’ve moved from “GitHub is not open source” to “GitHub has some support software for peripheral features that is not open-source?” I’m definitely failing to see the rant-worthiness of it at this point. It’s certainly not monopolistic, platforms like GitLab and Bitbucket also provide these features. And I’d bet that some of them have their own proprietary software to support these things too.

There’s quite a series of leaps of logic here.

Because Google (not Microsoft) released a project under the BSD license (an open source license) but “everyone on Lemmy” doesn’t think it’s open source, therefore a hosting site owned by Microsoft (not Google) is not “open source.”

I’m not even sure what is meant by GitHub being “open source.” It’s a hosting provider, not an actual piece of software. The site itself doesn’t have a source license. The individual repositories can have licenses, which can be whatever the user who created the repository sets it to be - including open source licenses. Do you mean GitHub Desktop? Microsoft released that under the MIT license. And you don’t need GitHub Desktop to use GitHub anyway.

Oh, that’s what you meant. How do you contribute to a project on any git host if that git host won’t let you? In what way is GitHub any different from that?

You’re not “pretty fucked”. Just use one of the many other git hosts out there. OP himself lists some of them in his rant.

Microsoft has developed many open-source projects. The view of Microsoft as some kind of anti-open-source crusader is 20 years out of date.

All of those issues would arise if you wanted to migrate an established project to Github as well.

This isn’t even a problem with historical awareness, OP knows that Github isn’t a monopoly. They listed off a bunch of alternatives in their rant. I’m really not sure what they were even complaining about.

Content warning: this is a rant from a teenager who has strong opinions.

Okay…

However, it holds a monopoly on software.

You don’t know what a “monopoly” is.

they could just go “Boop! You’re gone!” and there’s nothing I could do about it other than move forges.

Yeah, nothing you could do about it, other than moving to one of the many other git hosts. Monopoly!

And then after listing off a whole bunch of alternative git hosts…

Centralization is not bad by itself but it’s bad when there’s no other option. There just needs to be ways to contribute to code without having to use Github.

You have plenty of ways to do that, and you know that because you just listed them. Github is not a monopoly.

Also, I don’t see the concept of open source mentioned at any point in this rant.

It says “opt-out” in the title.

Indeed. Firefox already has “sponsored links” and such in the built-in homepage, I simply disable those when I first install it and get on with life.

Big projects like Firefox need big money to support it. If you don’t want it to be beholden to Google it needs to find ways to earn some on its own.

It’s true, go ahead and read the ToS. It only grants a license to Reddit to use your content. It explicitly says:

You retain any ownership rights you have in Your Content, but you grant Reddit the following license to use that Content:

And then goes on to enumerate what you’re licensing them to do with it. There’s also a section titled “Changes to these Terms” about how they can change the ToS going forward.

No problem. I’m not a lawyer myself, mind you, but I’ve encountered issues like these enough times over the years that I feel I’ve got a pretty good layman’s grasp. Plus I’ve actually read some of these ToSes and considered them from the perspective of the company running the site, which I suspect most people arguing about this stuff haven’t actually done.

I wish the Fediverse sites running without rigorous ToSes well, of course, but I suspect failing to establish clear rights to use the content people post on them is likely to end up biting them in the long run. At least the bigger ones. Hobby-level websites get away with a lot because they don’t have significant money on the line.

You could ask a lawyer, I suppose. But the basic gist of this is “we don’t know what we might need to do with this data in the future, so we put ‘we can do anything with this data’ into the ToS so that we know that if the need arises we won’t find ourselves unable to do what we need to do with it.” Any website that doesn’t do this could find itself unable to implement new features or comply with new laws they didn’t think of when crafting the original ToS.

At the very minimum a ToS needs to have some way to update and apply retroactively to old data, which ends up being “we can do anything with this data” with extra steps.

Have you not experimented with LLMs? They come up with new things all the time.

A user’s data still belongs to the user when they post it on sites like Reddit and such, too. The ToS doesn’t take ownership away from them, at least not in any case that I’ve seen. It just gives the site the license to use it as well.

If it makes you feel better, the thing that annoys me most is not so much that this is happening but more how everybody is suddenly surprised by it and complaining about it. The data-harvesting itself doesn’t really harm anyone.