PoV: I'm a dev and I want to put my code out there. GH is basically a social network that aims to show my project to like-minded folk, no other service does that. Personally I enjoy this social aspect and occasionally check on GH feed to see what the circle around me is doing, to catch sw trends.

Why would I be concerned about privacy when the idea is to make it public? GH is just a free host that happens to be most popular and it would reach most eyes, the best chance of getting back some contributions.

If I used any other git hosting service - my code would be scrapped just the same, but would reach almost no human. If I tried to publicise the project myself, the other devs and potential new users will be far more likely to click on a GH link than any alternative. Self hosted solution would get least clicks. People like familiar URLs that lead them to "safe" sites.

Among big tech, I actually prefer Microsoft over Google, Meta and others. Yes, MS is just as disgusting, but at least they are grossly incompetent and only manage to execute a fraction of evil schemes they come up with. It's funny to watch actually.

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

For what it's worth, Codeberg/Forgejo is working on adding federation features that will (eventually) connect different instances together to rebuild the "social network" part of things without centralizing on a single individual instance, much like the Fediverse is working on doing for other social networks.

[–] belazor@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Federation doesn’t fix the problem, at least not in its entirety. I posted a longer comment in another thread but the long and short of it is that accounts need to be portable if it’s going to work for a git hosting solution.

The comment: https://lemmy.zip/comment/26430897