Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitLab is now running on GCP

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 163 posts

Re: GitLab is now running on GCP

#131

Post by agildehaus »

dane-pgp wrote: post #114
mavhc wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name 5

Is your point that Google haven't censored more than 5 times, or that Google mostly censors people who aren't famous/memorable and therefore it's hard to name 5? https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/816mzt/big_alph... Perhaps you're saying that, if provided with a list of 5 examples, you would defend why Google chose to censor in those specific cases. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the details of all…

Linking /r/conspiracy doesn't help your case.

Re: GitLab is now running on GCP

#132

Post by nl »

CryoLogic wrote: post #87
joshuamorton wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took a cursory look through those, and every one I looked at appeared to be claiming that Sandy Hook/Las Vegas/Anothy Bourdain's suicide/some other thing was fake and a conspiracy. Can you explain how "Sandy hook was faked and no children were killed" is a political view? Or how "Anthony Bourdain's suicide was faked for monetary gain" is somehow a political opinion?

I never said I agreed with any of the channels or their content if you read my comment closely. I only against censoring freedom of speech and creating ideological echo Chambers.

Conspiracy isn’t an ideology.

Re: GitLab is now running on GCP

#133

Post by influx »

ma2rten wrote: post #68
zzzcpan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is very pro-government, pro-censorship, pro-regulations, pro-military. It's better to just accept that it will never be a decent infrastructure provider because of that.

I work at Google. Google can be very conservative and risk-averse in following regulations, but ask far as I can tell Google is one of the least pro-government, pro-censorship, pro-regulations, pro-military corporations in the world.

Are you an official spokesperson for Google?

Re: GitLab is now running on GCP

#134

Post by smsm42 »

clairity wrote: post #91
CryoLogic wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

freedom of speech only applies to governmental entities. private businesses and individuals are not restricted similarly. freedom of speech does not keep someone from thinking you (not you specifically, but the general you ) are an idiot or a kook, nor does it protect you from the consequences of your words by those other individuals (obviously other laws protect you from intentional physical harm and the like). noth…

> freedom of speech only applies to governmental entities

You are confusing laws (like 1st amendment of the US Constitution) with freedom of speech. Laws exist because freedom of speech is important, not the other way around. The fact that laws only restrict the government from suppressing freedom of speech doesn't mean it is not important in other contexts, just because there's no law enforcing it.

> nothing can compel me to listen

Banning someone from the internet (or any part of Internet that is serviced by a major corporation, which is almost all of it) is not the same as "I do not want to listen", it's "I don't like you so nobody gets to listen to you, at least not without extraordinary effort which 99.999% of people are not capable of". If you just don't want to listen to somebody on youtube, it's enough to not go to that channel. Removing the whole channel goes way beyond that and the only purpose of that to silence, not to "not listen" but to cause others not to listen.

Re: GitLab is now running on GCP

#135

Post by nl »

ac4tw wrote: post #119
yzmtf2008 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, I'd rather not have the bunch of crazy people expressing themselves on the website that I use. Youtube is not all of web. Youtube has no obligation to give you a platform to express whatever you want. If you want to say Sandy Hooks is fake, go to your own corner, like 127.0.0.1.

It seems like a good solution to CryoLogic and your discussion might be for services to allow you to choose what you would like censored. For instance 'yzmtf2008' could simply say, don't show me content like this. Obviously there are some challenges in the 'like this' part, but it seems like it might scale better and be less prone to centralized censorship problems than the current mechanism. The sad part is that 'yz…

I agreed with that until I found some people on HN who thought PizzaGate was a real thing. Even then I was open to the idea, but when someone turned up with a gun at Comet Pizza and started shooting I decided individual decisions about conspiracy theories are insufficient.

The big problem is that there is no valid counter argument to conspiracy theorist. That means all conventional means of combating them are useless.

Re: GitLab is now running on GCP

#136

Post by standardcitizen »

agildehaus wrote: post #131
dane-pgp wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your point that Google haven't censored more than 5 times, or that Google mostly censors people who aren't famous/memorable and therefore it's hard to name 5? https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/816mzt/big_alph... Perhaps you're saying that, if provided with a list of 5 examples, you would defend why Google chose to censor in those specific cases. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the details of all…

Linking /r/conspiracy doesn't help your case.

Is the information correct or incorrect? I’m not a massive fan boy if such kind of topics either. Often the crazy ones tell us research things that we often bypass.

This is one of those times. I don’t agree with their messaging, but Alex Jones should be allowed. Again I completely whole heartily disagree with him, but we can’t be selective in this area.

We’ve kind of validated him to some degree and made him much much bigger than before.

There is a class of people who feel like they aren’t being heard or lied too. Yet we often use tactics to discredit them.

I think this only embolden them. We can even discuss things, without doing the mental laziness of saying. I don’t wanna look at your source, because it’s x.

Within universities, you can’t use one source, why would you think it’s ok now?

You need supporting claims, if you disagree, than support it.. stop being mentally lazy.

Re: GitLab is now running on GCP

#137

Post by sml156 »

dane-pgp wrote: post #114
mavhc wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name 5

Is your point that Google haven't censored more than 5 times, or that Google mostly censors people who aren't famous/memorable and therefore it's hard to name 5? https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/816mzt/big_alph... Perhaps you're saying that, if provided with a list of 5 examples, you would defend why Google chose to censor in those specific cases. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the details of all…

Clicking on the first link in a Google search is no way to go threw life son.

Re: GitLab is now running on GCP

#138

Post by ubernostrum »

dane-pgp wrote: post #118
Adverblessly wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real reason is that since they cannot extract money from these countries because of the sanctions, they don't care about their existence, or how much trouble people from those countries would face due to their decisions. That doesn't make sense to me, letting people from those countries access resources on GCP does make Google money, since presumably Google will be paid by the website owner (which doesn't live…

Ironically you might have inadvertently provided the answer to your own question. If Google make money from a website owner (in the EU, for example), and that website owner makes money (using their website) from someone in a restricted country, then an imaginative prosecutor could argue that Google are guilty of knowingly facilitating some sort of "money laundering", from the restricted country to Google themselves.…

This is not much more far-fetched than the idea that a site like The Pirate Bay is guilty of "conspiring" with its users to infringe copyright.

"We're a piracy site, run by pirates, and we love piracy and pirates because of what piratical pirates we are, so we built a piracy site specially to cater to pirates and piracy! Also, we do not condone it in the slightest and built it for totally legitimate purposes, we promise!"

Yeah, gonna go with "no" on that one. It does not take an "imaginative" prosecutor to find the incredibly unbelievably subtle and deeply-hidden links between the Pirate Bay and its intended purpose.

Re: GitLab is now running on GCP

#139

Post by nl »

CryoLogic wrote: post #94
yzmtf2008 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "Sandy Hook is not fake" is an echo chamber to you, either your definition of echo chamber is wrong, or I'd rather not have you in my "chamber".

Even if they are wrong they should not be censored. Clearly state what is allowed and what is not. Do not pick sides and change rules on a case by case basis. Do what you say you are going to do. That's how businesses used to earn trust. Now integrity in business is a thing of the past. I'd rather have a bunch of crazy people expressing themselves on the web than being selectively removed due to a couple's persons op…

Even if they are wrong they should not be censored.

I don't agree that keeping conspiracy theorists off a platform is censorship. It's more akin to removing spam.

Jones himself argued (in his divorce hearing) that he doesn't expect anyone to believe him. I think in that case it is hard to argue it is political speech.

Re: GitLab is now running on GCP

#140

Post by miracle2k »

eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #123
smnrchrds wrote: post #12

I wish they hadn't done this. Google has a unique and strict interpretation of US sanctions on countries like Iran and Cuba, much more strict than that of Microsoft or Amazon. If your site is hosted on GCP, Google blocks access to it from any sanctioned countries.

I agree this probably hurts if you're in those countries or doing business with entities in those countries, but what business would stop an architecture overall that they believe is the right move, only because of the small Iranian/Cuban market? Either way, the best way to fix this is to lobby Congress.

You're right that for most, there isn't a business case to care about access to these sanctioned countries (there are more than just those two that Google is blocking). I wouldn't say you won't be locking out any users: people in Iran obviously do use, say, source control. But sure, the monetary loss is very limited.

But ideology can be a powerful reason. And people in Open Source can be very ideological. Certainly for me, this makes Gitlab a no-go. I want my code to be accessible by everyone. I do wonder what kind of pressure could be applied to Gitlab in terms of free software developers shunning the platform.

Post reply on HN