Well, this is not exactly what I expected to find in the ToS:
GitHub, in its sole discretion, has the right to suspend
or terminate your account and refuse any and all current or
future use of the Service, or any other GitHub service, for
any reason at any time. Such termination of the Service will
result in the deactivation or deletion of your Account or
your access to your Account, and the forfeiture and
relinquishment of all Content in your Account. GitHub
reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any
reason at any time
That means my company's code can be wiped out by GH at any time, for any reason. Please don't hurt me :(
Verbal, physical, written or other abuse (including threats of abuse or retribution) of any GitHub customer, employee, member, or officer will result in immediate account termination.
What if a GitHub employee cuts me in traffic and I shout f--- you!? My account could be lawfully terminated if the guy finds my twitter handle.
God, I hate law. I'm sure github folks have good intentions and operate on good will, but reading this stuff gives me shivers.
> Verbal, physical, written or other abuse (including threats of abuse or retribution) of any GitHub customer, employee, member, or officer will result in immediate account termination.
That's not the alternative to law, that's an alternative to humanity's current state itself.
The alternative to law is "I've got a bigger stick, you shut your face or I do it for you", where "stick" is not a metaphor for lawyers on retainer but an actual stick.
That's an oversimplification. We have a big virtual stick, which we use to make some guys to register what we want on paper and give other guys real big sticks so that they will tell us to do what we actually wanted. At least, that's how it's supposed to work, I guess. (And it's also oversimplification.)
"give other guys real big sticks so that they will tell us to do what we actually wanted"
I think you mean so that they will tell other people to do what we wanted. Also, that doesn't change the fact that those with lesser power will be in a worse position to enact change. They will usually be on the losing end of "the stick".
> they will tell other people to do what we wanted
No, actually I meant us, but more as a whole. We all vote for laws that are mostly applicable to ourselves (except foreign policy). This is, of course, in theory.
I agree, though, that it's harder to enforce change if you don't have any perceivable stick. People in power can control elections, after all, and there's not enough transparency about what happens ‘at the top’.
No, with laws you can appeal them. You can argue with words (not fists). Decisions are made by neutral third parties. There are rules about what evidence is allowed to be used against you, both that the evidence has to be true and has to be obtained in a proper manner.
So the only difference is that there's some inane talking performed by some of the most highly paid people in society who argue not on morality but on stupid technicalities as a prelude to sticks being taken out and my fellow men and women being beaten.
Rationalisation is truly the root of all evil and you're falling for it. If violence is not OK then the context shouldn't dictate exemptions. Most members of society call it arrest when a police officer forcefully restrains someone and locks them in a cage. Some of us call a spade a spade and use the proper word for it, which is kidnapping. It's easy to side with the biggest gang in the land, everyone else does it, right?
These arguments are in the same vein as those used by the British to justify colonialism, which is that they built roads, rail and developed the economies of those countries. While true, it doesn't change the fact that a line was overstepped and the action was oppressive at it's core. The effects of such actions ripple through the generations. And so it is with our legal system.
To protect (the rich from the poor) and serve (those with money).
Any legal system has flaws. But not having a legal system makes it an anarchy, and I would argue that that causes far more violence. The hope behind law is that it will not be violated. The theoretical underpinning of law that I support makes the point that law should reduce total violence.
If you say that violence is not OK, and context shouldn't dictate exemptions, can I believe that you think violence in self defense is wrong? If that is not your position, legal punishments seem to be that abstracted with respect to time, location, and direct facts.
Didn't have time to respond to the central points in your reply last time.
If you look at the statistics for the re-offending rate post-incarceration, you will find them to be alarmingly high. We have a system which is designed to reduce crime but does not do it's job properly.
An anarchy does not imply chaos, merely a lack of hierarchy (the word's roots are "an" - not and "arkhē" - power, authority) . The main argument for Anarchism is that power corrupts, so this system aims to rid a society of corruption by making it impossible to corrupt anyone by keeping everyone on the same level. It's mind boggling that the one political system which preaches absolute equality is often labeled as the most dangerous one, whereas a system which preaches greed and individuality at the cost of everyone else's welfare is "the best system we have".
Looking at the root causes of violence, theft of property and other oppressive actions, they appear to be caused by the inherent inequality of our socioeconomic system. For example, people with dopamine deficiencies tend towards delinquent behavior (e.g. stealing), dopamine deficiencies are caused by excessive drug use and drug use is caused by an inability to cope with one's environment. I would argue that all criminal issues are health issues at their core and that the legal system we currently have treats the effects and not the causes.
I think that a better system would only use violence as a last resort during a situation and never retroactively (e.g. stop a man from killing another man but don't use violence after the situation is defused, including arresting the person). When considering the point that these criminals are behaving in a violent way because they feel threatened and that the police officers are behaving in a violent way because they also feel threatened, it becomes hard to label either of them as good or bad. They're just reacting to their environment but they are, nonetheless, essentially in the same state and performing the same actions. They are, however, both ignorant of the true effects of their actions.
In other words, dig into the causes of crime and try to empathize with the criminals and you'll find that they aren't much different to everyone else, except in the way they have been treated.
Ofcourse, there are edge cases where people are violent due to genetic defects and so are not treatable. I think that the only way to handle these cases is to legitimize their feelings and give them a way to vent without hurting anyone. Give them jobs as butchers or hunters or something.
Either way, driving mental health issues out of the mainstream and marginalizing these people makes it far harder to treat them properly and solve the problem. It's the same issue as with drug prohibition - some countries are finally starting to see drug use as a health, not criminal, issue and they are seeing huge benefits from this (e.g. Portugal). The next logical step is to start approaching other criminal issues in the same way.
> The law usually serves whomever has more money and power.
Not necessarily. Of course, when you need more money and power, that's why groups like the EFF exist. To fight for you.
> In the end, the masses are still powerless.
SOPA passed then, right? Please. This attitude of yours does more harm. Those with the "money and power" would love for you to think this way. Defeatism helps more than money.
As it stands, the law gives us amazing power.
That being said, GitHub has every right to dictate the conditions of their use. You, as a user, have a right to not use their service if you disagree. In fact, this allows competitors to provide their services to you (and their are competitors to GitHub).
That's certainly true for the code, but Github is more than just that. Think of the commit-comments, issues, pull requests, private messages and wiki pages. I guess you could create backups of most of these things with the API, but who does that?
I do. Well, not private messages, but the rest of it (including all the forks). Checked into branches of the git repository so any clone has all the data.
You still have it and all of its history on your own machine. Git is distributed, a central web-based repository like GitHub is useful but not needed. At all.
GitHub, in its sole discretion, has the right to suspend or terminate your account and refuse any and all current or future use of the Service, or any other GitHub service, for any reason at any time. Such termination of the Service will result in the deactivation or deletion of your Account or your access to your Account, and the forfeiture and relinquishment of all Content in your Account. GitHub reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time
That means my company's code can be wiped out by GH at any time, for any reason. Please don't hurt me :(