Thread

1. hermitcrab · 1790267696 · focus · HN ↗

   Author of the post here. Github finally took the offending page down approximately 10 minutes after the post appeared on the front page of HN. Total coincidence. I'm sure!

   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.

   1. koolba · 1790268882 · focus · HN ↗

      > 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.

      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.

      1. debugnik · 1790269406 · focus · HN ↗

         > I wouldn’t chalk any of this up to malicious intent. I’m sure they are swamped with such requests.

         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.

         1. ktm5j · 1790274324 · focus · HN ↗

            I mean.. for better or worse, this is how corporate America works. Hiring to solve a problem that's not costing them money (and solving it doesn't make money) is probably not going to happen, especially with the current state of the economy. They have more of an obligation to make money for their investors than they do anything else, that's just how it works.

            1. Paracompact · 1790276401 · focus · HN ↗

               > They have more of an obligation to make money for their investors than they do anything else, that's just how it works

               Where does this myth come from, and how does it survive? It's either an excuse for parasitic corporatism, or an expression of learned helplessness. Nobody has been successfully sued for prioritizing the long-term health and reputation of a company over self-starving quarterly profit.

               Is there a perverse incentive toward the latter anyway? Yes. But it mostly serves current leadership, who are evaluated and paid on short horizons, at the expense of the long-term investors who own most of the equity.

               1. ktm5j · 1790276611 · focus · HN ↗

                  Definitely not a myth, friend. Read this article from Harvard Business School: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;online.hbs.edu&#x2F;blog&#x2F;post&#x2F;fiduciary-duty-to-investors" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;online.hbs.edu&#x2F;blog&#x2F;post&#x2F;fiduciary-duty-to-investors

                  &quot;Accepting funding from investors puts you in a fiduciary role in which you’re responsible for managing their money and putting their needs above your own&quot;

                  1. usefulcat · 1790278338 · focus · HN ↗

                     Where on that page is there anything to indicate that hiring more QA or mods would be so bad as to be considered a breach of fiduciary duty? That seems like a pretty big exaggeration, at best.

                     This behavior is a matter of incentives, not obligations. No need to apologize for them.

                     &quot;Fiduciary duty&quot; does not mean &quot;pursue profit to the exclusion of all other considerations&quot;.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.