HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
github
site-policy
Security & Privacy2017–2026
github / site-policy

site-policy

Collaborative development on GitHub's site policies, procedures, and guidelines

Security & PrivacyLearning & Reference
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
21Distinct people
25Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
2.2KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Collaborative development on GitHub's site policies, procedures, and guidelines

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 12:54:37 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year25 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2017-07-16 20:12:11 UTC to 2026-06-10 11:13:31 UTC.

0123452017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 2 submissions, 3 comments20172018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 0 submissions, 5 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 3 submissions, 1 comments20212022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 2 submissions, 1 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC523
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC505
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC431
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC321
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC312
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

25 sources
skilled·Apr 21, 2024
The pull request and an update from GH team on what they mean, https://github.com/github/site-policy/pull/926#issuecomment-... > To clarify, this policy would not impact general-purpose tools that can generate synthetic media (like Stable Diffusion and other general-purpose tools created to work with it). Tools created specifically for generating non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) or disinformation (or encouraging it) would not be allowed.
In GitHub policy proposal on deepfake AI tools
Tiberium·Apr 19, 2024
I'm sorry if the title might seem misleading, but I've based it on the actual PR [1], which says "GitHub does not allow any projects that are designed for, encourage, promote, support, or suggest in any way the use of synthetic or manipulated media for the creation of non-consensual intimate imagery or any content that would constitute misinformation or disinformation under this policy.". Notice the explicit "does not allow". Should I still change it to the original? [1] https://github.com/github/site-policy/pull/926
In A policy proposal on our approach to deepfake tools and responsible AI
kbutler·Apr 14, 2024
It is possible, yes. It just hampers much of what people expect modern websites to do (though it hinders abuse, as well, which is good!). But even GitHub, who proudly declared they had removed all non-essential cookies https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ added them back https://github.com/github/site-policy/pull/582/files and now if you click either "Manage cookies" or "Do not share my personal information" at the bottom of the page, you'll see they have the common "Required", "Analytics", "Social Media", "Advertising" categories. (Bummed that they have the Advertising category.)
In Show HN: Mazelit - My wife and I released our first game
iliasbartolini·Dec 19, 2020
Hi natfriedman, thanks for the transparency. Removing Google Analytics is a good thing, thanks for that. I also appreciate that you use DoNotTrack to give users a choice (even if this is not available on Safari any more). As it is explained the privacy policy. Basically you now use the same cookie "_octo" both for session management and first part tracking: https://github.com/github/site-policy/pull/336/files#diff-8b... EU guidelines require that you offer granularity of choice for different “processing purposes”. See in this "Guidelines on consent under Regulation 2016/679" https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file1/edpb_gui... In section "3.1.3 Granularity" paragraph #44. "If the controller has conflated several purposes for processing and has not attempted to seek separate consent for each purpose, there is a lack of freedom.
Read the rest
[...] When data processing is done in pursuit of several purposes, the solution to comply with the conditions for valid consent lies in granularity, i.e. the separation of these purposes and obtaining consent for each purpose" You grouped cookies together and removed granularity of choice. I think this is against the spirit of the regulation. Overall I think the the change is positive, but grouping cookies to avoid a banner is still against the regulation.
In No Cookie for You

Showing the 15 most recent of 25 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.