I am not a techie person, and will struggle with the finer points of how GitHub's core business can/might be affected by the buyout in terms of the platform for development, itself. However, I've pretty much come to learn over my several decades that bigger is rarely better, that combinations rarely serve the public good, and that bigger mergers are worse than smaller ones. When a giant like Microsoft buys out the world's largest development platform it raise questions. Well... or at least for me, it does. Are there no anti-trust issues here? Is a megacorparation already determining all (or most) of our home-based computer operability the place we want controlling much of our future programming?
Now, I am still a relative newbie to Steemit, so correct me if I am wrong, but does not all of our development and hardfork work take place via the GitHub system? I know Microsoft has already been in trouble before for both antitrust violations (or at least antitrust charges have been considered before) and for being biased against certain points of view. Do we, as a community dedicated to even-handedness and fair play want to be dependent for all future development on a platform controlled by Microsoft?
But do we have a choice? Is there another place where our development could be done if our community determines Microsoft ought not to be our gatekeeper? Just raising some questions for your consideration, here. Here is an article that talks about what is happening:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/06/microsoft-acquires-github-for-7-5-billion.html
Thanks for listening.
what exactly is Github? everything online goes through them so they could control everything? sorry for the redneck questions.
As I understand it--and I am far from expert on this stuff--it's an online tool for programmers to smoothly manipulate blockchain platforms, and other software writing aids for various platforms.
oh ok. I'm farther from being an expert than you are but that makes snese. bottom line is the control factor in the hands of just a few companies.
Right. I personally think we are far too lax in defining monopoly, and in enforcing existing monopoly laws.
because the lobbyists working for the monopolies are paying millions to
the politicians?
Good thoughts to be thinking, and questions to be asking!
Thanks, pp. I thought so.
When did we turn our backs on monopolies? It certainly gives us less choice and should they decide to set prices on any items and there is no competition.....well we are screwed so to speak. Apathy abounds. 🐓🐓
We turned our backs on monopoly ENFORCEMENT way back in the 1890s, when the Standard Oil Company led the way in snubbing antitrust laws by bribing judges and Congressman and getting away with it. It's to the point where they even let two of the "Seven Sisters" re-merge (Mobil and Exxon) and nobody lifted a finger to stop it.