7 ms·
GitHub is adding web cookies for enterprise users
- ocdtrekkie 4y agoOn one hand, it sounds like it's only on marketing pages, which I never visit anyways. On the other hand, in December 2020, they said "We are also committing that going forward, we will only use cookies that are required for us to serve GitHub.com" and apparently in corporate terms, a "commitment" lasts less than two years now. Presumably the main change here is Nat made this commitment and Nat has since left Microsoft, but it's hard to believe their marketing team thinks the data value from a couple marketing pages is worth the PR hit from this. Just a dumb--- business move, really.
- landhar 4y agoThe 2020 announcement for reference: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ This is very reminiscent of the “why whatsapp doesn’t sell ads” [1]. A good reminder that we should never trust any long term promises from companies. [1] https://blog.whatsapp.com/why-we-don-t-sell-ads/?lang=en https://blog.whatsapp.com/why-we-don-t-sell-ads/?lang=en
- fxtentacle 4y agoAnd that's why you should never buy a software subscription with proprietary file formats.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- zzo38computer 4y agoSomeone suggested using a different domain name for the marketing pages. I think that this would be a good idea, then you can clearly tell the difference. And, if the different domain name is something other than "GitHub.com" then the commitment mentioned in December 2020 is still valid. As long as it only affects the enterprise marketing pages (which, like you, I do not use) and it is clearly documented (unfortunately some of the documentation changes seem confusing, and I am not the only one who thinks that), then I have no problem with this. (I do not use GitHub for my own projects, but I do use it to view other projects and to communicate with other projects that do use GitHub. In future I might also set up mirrors of my projects on GitHub, but the main working of the project will not be on GitHub.)
- gtirloni 4y agoAnother PR that will be closed to comments pretty soon because of the mobs.
- mikro2nd 4y agoDoesn't matter, because, "These updates will go into effect after the 30-day notice and comment period". i.e. "Comment all you like, we're steaming ahead with this stupid idea regardless."
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lopatin 4y agoPeople seem outraged about the marketing cookies. Genuine question: Why?
- baobob 4y agoGitHub made a huge fuss in a blog post about their compliance with the ePrivacy directive not more than 2 years ago. I personally found their approach and interpretation interesting and unique, so this change seems noteworthy for that reason alone
- hatware 4y ago> marketing cookies Do you think ads have gotten better or worse over time? I think it's unequivocally worse now than it was then. There's a point where you're fed up with seeing the same ads for products you don't want or need.
- petre 4y agoDo you think cancer has gotten better or worse over time? Because that's what ads are, rhe cancer of any media they touch.
- armchairhacker 4y agoSlippery slope. First it's cookies for marketing, then it's selling your data, then it's "sponsored" repositories showing up in search. Next thing you know, recruiters are cold-calling you with your private email address and you can't even get to your own README without scrolling past banner ads and autoplay videos. After all, that's pretty much how the rest of the web works. Do I really think that's going to happen? No. If GitHub were to introduce ads or invasive marketing everyone would move to GitLab in a second. A decent amount of people are already moving to GitLab and GitHub hasn't even done anything! Things like marketing cookies for analytics on marketing pages are genuinely not an issue. But people take it as a sign, because of all the shit that goes on the rest of the web, and how GitHub explicitly said they were not going to do this. The fact they made a "commitment" not to do this is particularly important because it shows that GitHub's promises don't mean anything. But migrating your repo is easy. Personally I'm going to wait until things actually get bad before moving.
- renewiltord 4y agoThe user tracking makes sense, but ads are weird in this product. There's no way it makes sense to add ads to paying customers. That's strange.
- pessimizer 4y agoMakes a lot of sense. Paying customers are far better ad targets than deadbeats.
- renewiltord 4y agoFair enough. I guess I'll just have to ublock
- nicce 4y agoAt this point, it is hard to say how well integrated they are. If the blocking is not straightforward.
- zzo38computer 4y agoThey changed the section about DNT, which makes it confusing. If GitHub can use DNT, then they should mention that (like it had before). If GitHub does not use DNT, then they should delete that section. The same section mentions Privacy Badger and uBlock Origin, which they could mention anyways if they want to do, but they should mention that GitHub is not affiliated with them (even though some of these projects might be hosted on GitHub).
- jacamera 4y agoI don't understand why people care about cookies. The stupid cookie banners are an actual nuisance.
- ocdtrekkie 4y agoThe nuisance is an intentional choice by the bad actors in marketing to make you mad about the banner instead of their business practices of tracking you everywhere. Understand that cookie banners are malicious compliance and they make a lot more sense.
- jacamera 4y agoWhy should I be mad about a tracking cookie? > Understand that cookie banners are malicious compliance and they make a lot more sense. How are they malicious compliance? The laws are poorly-reasoned and poorly-written. I'll continue to be mad about that.
- haileys 4y agoThere are no laws in Australia requiring cookie banners, and yet I get hit with them constantly. So the law is clearly not the reason for these annoying banners.
- jacamera 4y agoSo then why do you think you see them? *Edit: Sorry if this came off as rude but it was a legitimate question. I honestly cannot think of another plausible reason that would explain the proliferation of the banners.
- lopatin 4y agoWhich Australian sites require cookie opt-ins?
- Zarel 4y agoThe EU laws require the banners to be shown to all EU citizens regardless of the country they're in, right? I think the only way to be absolutely safe is to show cookie banners everywhere.
- sneak 4y agoThis is Microsoft we’re talking about here. They provide OSes and PowerPoint for the CIA laptops that plan extrajudicial assassinations and torture sites, and groupware for the concentration camps for children down in Texas; their blatant commercialism is perhaps the least gross thing about them. Imagine the most terrible dark patterns from LinkedIn (which they also own), and go self-host Gitea and move your repos.
- silversnitch 4y agoSo if CIA uses GNU/Linux and Libreoffice then should we gross out about Linux and stop using it? Microsoft might have billions of problems but CIA using windows and PowerPoint isn't one of them.
- pessimizer 4y agoIf the FSF becomes a CIA vendor, I'm definitely out. Your analogy doesn't quite make sense, though. Neither Linux nor GNU are vendors to anyone. If they were, it would throw enough of their mission into question that most people would stop supporting them and fork everything.
- dahdum 4y agoSounds like they are adding cookies to their marketing landing pages for enterprise ads. Not that they are running ads on GitHub. Is there something more to this?
- meibo 4y agoNo, but people are looking for any reason to claim that MS has ruined GitHub so that the loud Twitter predictions they made during the acquisition aren't as embarrassing.
- fartcannon 4y agoHey if it quacks like a duck.
- matt3210 4y agoThere are tons of open source GitHub alternatives, why does opensource still use GitHub? Why does anyone?
- arjvik 4y agoNetwork effect
- pessimizer 4y agoWhy does all academia do volunteer work and publish in journals owned by private companies with like a 70% profit margin? Collective action is hard, and it's even harder when billionaires make conscious, organized efforts to disrupt it.
- zzo38computer 4y agoI do not (and will not) use GitHub for my own projects, although I use it for viewing other projects that do use GitHub and for communicating with them. Mirroring projects on GitHub (and possibly other services too) even if the main working is not on GitHub, is also possible (I might add mirrors on GitHub and others in future, but currently I only have the main working hosted on my own computer and the mirror on Chisel, and I still intend to keep both of these even if there are mirrors on other services too). (Even SQLite is mirror on GitHub even though its main working is hosted by themself instead and is not even using git.) I would not recommend using GitLab unless it is not the only mirror of your project (it is acceptable if you are mirroring it on something else, too). If you do want alternatives, you may consider Codeberg, NotABug, and/or Sourcehut. The reason I exclude GitLab is because it cannot display the files unless JavaScripts are enabled (or if you use the git protocol, which is kind of confusing compared with fossil) (it is OK if it uses JavaScript for other functions as long as the files can be viewed without it) (this is not a problem if there are other mirrors, since you can view the mirrors instead).
- propogandist 4y agodevelopers are typically unreachable to marketers. This will be MSFT unlocking a rare audience that will fetch top dollars from enterprise advertisers, right before cookies go out of standard. This move, like the exclusive Netflix ads inventory, makes it clear that MSFT sees ads as a big driver to business growth.
- WhyNotHugo 4y agoI'm sure they'll ask for user's explicit consent before planting any cookies, as required by current legislation, right? I can't imagine many developers opting in.
- propogandist 4y agothat restriction only applies to EU users