[nicce]

> The person you are responding to doesn't even want to make a free account yet expects to be able to use all of Github's services for free.

To be fair, definition of free depends. OPs argument was that they pay with data. That is not free if you think that you lose something. It is different question do we value it similarly.

[kelnos]

Sure, and if they don't want to pay with data, then they don't get to use the free search. While I don't love it, it's well within GitHub's rights to set those terms. They pay the bills, they get to decide who uses it, and how.

The real problem is that a company like GitHub (now owned by Microsoft, of all companies, sheesh) has a strongly market-leading position in the idea of "publicly-hosted git repositories". Even if they were giving away everything fro free, and not tracking users, that would still be concerning.

[Alupis]

Ok then, so that's like going to a restaurant and complaining the food costs money. Metaphoric "duh".

[Dylan16807]

That's not accurate. GitHub is still getting lots of data from people without accounts, and providing open access helps them get more users in general.

If we have to do a restaurant analogy, it's like going to a restaurant (buffet?), opting out of premium, and still wanting access to a particular food item. It's not automatically ridiculous.

[Alupis]

The OP is literally standing outside the restaurant looking through the window and complaining about not being allowed to eat for free.

> GitHub is still getting lots of data from people without accounts

This doesn't matter. If you want code search, you must log into a free account. Why is this controversial? Github isn't a charity - they don't exist to benefit freeloaders that won't even create a free account. Life doesn't need to be this hard folks...

[Dylan16807]

Your version of the analogy makes no sense, because the people with accounts are also eating for free.

If data is payment, then both groups are paying.

If data isn't payment, then what is? Please elaborate on what distinguishes the groups, and how people with free github accounts fit into the analogy.

[tekknik]

you two both have missed the obvious that recently it was deemed legal to scrape public sights, and GH has all the code, and other code based AI tools need training.

The parent complaining about creating a free account can just keep complaining, or create one, I don’t care. But this nonsense about cost for search is not the issue.

[amiga386]

It's like going to a museum that houses all the world's great treasures because it's funded by billionaires and they outbid all the smaller, shabbier publically-owned museums that _could_ be housing them in their own countries.

The treasures belong to humanity, not the museum, but they get the honour of hosting them, and that glory reflects on their reputation (which they use to sell commercial artifact-hosting services).

Entry is completely free, and for 16 years they gave you a map as you entered. But now some marketing genius has decided you don't get a map unless you give them your name and address and join their "friends of the museum" marketing programme.

These are not good signs for someone who wants to be custodian of the world's great treasures. I would argue it would be better for the world if the treasures were housed in local museums instead.