ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
33% Positive
Analyzed from 2148 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#github#support#open#source#dmca#page#malware#https#post#front
Discussion (119 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Moral of the story. If you want even the most basic level of support from Github, you need to get on the front page of HN first.
And it seems they are able to do things very quickly, when they want to. Bastards.
This also works for Google support.
> And it seems they are able to do things very quickly, when they want to. Bastards.
I wouldn’t chalk any of this up to malicious intent. I’m sure they are swamped with such requests.
It was already a problem before agents could automatically perform these actions.
And it’s not something you can really automate on their end either. At least not the judgement call on the removal. Imagine if there was a fully automated process and it inadvertently took down a legit project.
Stalling in the hope that reporters won't escalate, instead of allocating a tiny bit of their billions in profit to hiring for this, is malicious in my book.
I don't see that changing for any of the large companies unfortunately, anytime soon.
Then maybe they should be growing their customer support capacity along with their business. It drives me crazy how big companies have normalized cutting those departments down to anemic proportions. Especially those where you're a paying customer.
They just don't want to. Not malicious, just ignorant and disrespectful of their users.
It's malice from whoever is responsible for under-staffing. It's also malice to prioritize the squeaky wheel for optics; it's intentional to reduce the spread of the knowledge of how unresponsive they are.
Handling these requests at whatever scale they operate is their responsibility.
Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to take on all of their customers.
Not excusing their slow response, though.
For example (simplified), if a user makes a call, a person with sufficient privileges to handle 90% of the cases should answer on the other end within 2 minutes. If the case cannot be handled, the higher-up with privileges to handle 99% of the cases should be reached within 5 minutes. And to be fair, it should be mandated for all companies, not only FAANG-like.
But a company like Meta (for example) with a billion customers would then have to decide whether they want to work on quality improvements for their services or whether they would like to hire a million technical support staff.
Just seems like a silly rational response to the same problem.
And how I am supposed to know who they are or how to reach them?
Fraud
Do the ends justify the means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
> ping ~anyone on the security team
> HN provided them some bandwidth
> also works for Google support
> answered within a day earlier this year
> no reaction otherwise. It's still online.
> app stuck in limbo at Apple
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_programming
> given what we know publicly
> thread of evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
https://lowendbox.com/blog/will-github-ever-remove-this-null...
Booking.com kept a clearly fraudulent listing (images clearly stolen from another Booking.com listing with mirroring + some filters) fully online for at least two days (I got distracted and stopped taking daily screenshots after that). I just got a response that they've taken it down almost 10 days after I had initially reported it (although I think they marked it as not bookable some time before that).
Not the worst thing in the world, they're easy to spot, but I'd like to see GitHub invest more time in protecting their users from falling victim to these bad actors.
There's an impersonation profile of me on Github (username happyhannob). I've reported it a while ago, received the same automated message, and no reaction otherwise. It's still online.
I guess you can't expect basic fraud prevention from a company currently building the future with AI...
Open source code is still copyrighted. What the license defines is rights that people have in distributing that code. If an unofficial repository is using open source code to ship malware, and the license that software had didn’t allow that, then the unofficial repository is still breaking copyright law despite the code being open source.
EDIT: e.g. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/policy/
You're correct I was overly broad about the actual name use being DMCA-able though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright
Now, projects might choose to license their logo permissively, but that's an active choice.
I think the likelihood GitHub did something within 10 minutes of a post appearing on HN's front page is approximately zero.
Nobody in GitHub Trust & Safety is sat there watching HN.
An executive or communications professional who might have heard it got on HN, or seen it appear in a tool monitoring Microsoft and GitHub's mentions across the internet, and who then flagged the post, Trust & Safety would probably spend *more than 10 minutes* noticing the email or Teams message, then trying to find the right ticket internally. Then after locating the ticket you still have to investigate the facts, discuss, and click buttons to ban/delete the user.
It's (much) more likely this sat in a queue until someone got to it and the timing of it being on HN is a complete coincidence.
Please, any competent software dev business has eyes on this page on an hourly basis.
I'm in aerospace and we're crawling on this site, all the way at the top levels.
The lengths people will go to "never attribute to malice..." are pretty impressive in these days of baldly stated or visible malice from the top.