Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I agree that our perspectives are different.

I see this from the perspective of someone who wants to see developers get paid. Safely and securely, in a way that makes it easy for them to get paid the next time too.

I'm also looking at this from the angle of "What non-nefarious reasons would GitHub have for making these decisions?". One of the first that sprang to mind is credit card security, which touches on quite a few issues at once.

Further, my experience is that most of the time decisions that can be interpreted as being done for nefarious reasons were rarely actually made that way. I am willing to extend the HN-guideline principle of charity to GitHub, especially because I can see clear, real, valid reasons for standing up their own service over a partnership with a third-party service. I understand that some people will find these unconvincing or decide they are just a ploy.

I haven't even touched on AML or KYC issues!

You are definitely right about the importance of infrastructure made entirely of open source software. My perspective is, in essence, that there are other features that matter that may not fully live in code.



   What non-nefarious reasons would GitHub have for making these decisions?
GitHub is owned by Microsoft now- they can afford to do this at a loss / zero sum amount because Microsoft thinks it's a good idea.

As long as Microsoft is being altruistic here, we should be fine.

I think.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: