[simula67]

> “I think that’s a totally valid question to bring up,” Lavigne said earlier today about whether the database could be used for targeted harassment, “but I think that the information is already out there, and if people want to embark on individual campaigns of harassment, then they’re going to be doing that no matter what.”

That does not mean you have to make it easier

[erric]

>That does not mean you have to make it easier

He’s calling attention to the appalling policy choice made by his government. In this case I think he would have to make it easier.

[qop]

There can sometimes be a fine line between "enabling" and "meddling"

I mean, surely you can't expect a site like GitHub with thousands of projects happening every day to be able to keep track of each one and make sure that something bad isnt being done with the project.

[txcwpalpha]

What? Yes you surely can expect that. That's what moderation is. That's what every site on the internet that allows user-submitted content does. Thats what Twitter does, YouTube does, Facebook does, Reddit does, and HN does. That's what GitHub does. GitHub is ultimately responsible for everything that is hosted on their site, and so of course they track each one and monitor them for violations of their policies. If they couldn't do that, they wouldn't be in business.

[MichaelMoser123]

Then how comes that gitlab is still hosting this content? Do the have a different policy? Or is it they just didn't notice?

[txcwpalpha]

GitLab isn't still hosting the content. They too have taken it down.

[ben_w]

Your examples are explicitly social sites (networking or forums) where moderation is done by the general public seeing and responding to content.

GitHub has a slightly different dynamic, being work focused, and there being no reason for most people to delve into random repositories and flag inappropriate ones.

Heck, even the underlying tech assumes problems fixed with patches rather than repository deletion, so if anthing it’s half way between Wikipedia and Geocities.

[txcwpalpha]

>Your examples are explicitly social sites

I guess you don't realize this, but GitHub is a social site too.

>where moderation is done by the general public seeing and responding to content.

And this is the same at GitHub, too. Have you never noticed the "Report Abuse" buttons for PRs, users, comments, etc?

> GitHub has a slightly different dynamic, being work focused, and there being no reason for most people to delve into random repositories and flag inappropriate ones.

Except you're looking at a reason right here. GitHub is also used for sharing your work with others, as was the case here. There are instances where such work is against community policies/guidelines, and in those instances, GitHub takes them down. I'm not sure where you're seeing the disconnect here. It's not any different at all than making a post on Reddit and a moderator removing it or someone reporting said post and then it being removed.

[ben_w]

> I guess you don't realize this, but GitHub is a social site too.

Which is why I say “explicitly”. Github has social as what feels like a bolt-on afterthought because everyone else was doing it and it’s a buzzword.

> And this is the same at GitHub, too. Have you never noticed the "Report Abuse" buttons for PRs, users, comments, etc?

Nope. Never needed to look for one. However, rather more importantly, I have just made a deliberate look for a “report repository” link…

…and found nothing.

> Except you're looking at a reason right here.

Key word being “random”. Twitter has trends, Reddit has its front page, public Facebook posts can and do go viral. GitHub has such a list, but you need to go looking for it — you don’t have random stuff thrown in you face whenever you use it like the other platforms, so there is _much_ less opportunity to train a learning algorithm to automatically filter anything. I’m not sure you could even train such a model now, with perfect data, because that would involve understanding the purpose of a repo rather than sentiment analysis of natural language.

The appropriate people only found out about this repo because the person who made it did so with the internation to be noticed.

And I’m not saying there shouldn’t be or even that there isn’t the capacity to take things down. I’m saying comparing repos to tweets is like comparing apples to grenades — they both “keep the doctor away”, but for the most part, treat them differently.

[txcwpalpha]

>Which is why I say “explicitly”. Github has social as what feels like a bolt-on afterthought because everyone else was doing it and it’s a buzzword.

If that's the logic we're going by, then Facebook isn't "explicitly" social either, as it originally started out as a photo site and just had comments "bolted on" as an afterthought. And yet it still has moderation. So again, I don't even know what your point is.

>Nope. Never needed to look for one. However, rather more importantly, I have just made a deliberate look for a “report repository” link…

So because you personally have never reported anything, means that the community doesn't report things? I don't think you know how things work...

>…and found nothing.

You must have not looked very hard. Repositories are linked to users, and thus to report a repo, you report a user. And in case you have trouble finding it, the link to report a user is one of the first things you see when you open their profile, just underneath the profile picture and name.

>Key word being “random”. Twitter has trends, Reddit has its front page, public Facebook posts can and do go viral. GitHub has such a list, but you need to go looking for it — you don’t have random stuff thrown in you face whenever you use it like the other platforms

What are you even talking about? GitHub's discover repo feature is one of the very first things you see on the GitHub front page. There is literally a giant banner dedicated to discovering new projects right there in front of you when you first open up GitHub. If you do a Google search for "GitHub", the "Explore" link is the first link that is shown to you under GitHub.com. You don't have to go looking for it at all.

>so there is _much_ less opportunity to train a learning algorithm to automatically filter anything.

Who said anything about training any kind of algorithm to do anything? We're talking about reporting and moderating content. Nobody even mentioned a learning algorithm.

But hell, if we're going to bring it up: GitHub does have this. Again, on the front page of GitHub, if you click on the link in the giant banner that suggests you explore more repositories, one of the places it takes you is a list of suggested repositories that it suggests to you based on other repos that you have starred.

>The appropriate people only found out about this repo because the person who made it did so with the internation to be noticed.

The appropriate people found out about this repo because the person who made it shared the repo, because GitHub is a social site meant for sharing code, just like thousands of other people use it all the time. Just go view Show HN and see how many link to GitHub: https://news.ycombinator.com/show

I really have no idea what your point even is, other than for some reason you seem to be trying to draw some distinction in GitHub's social features against other social site's features. There is no need for such distinction, because at the end of the day the same type of moderation is still happening.

[bassman9000]

Precisely

Hey, people are still going to kill each other, so I'm going to leave this gun in here