GitHub backs down, kills Copilot pull-request ads after backlash
https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/30/github_copilot_ads_pull_requests/
GitHub backs down, kills Copilot pull-request ads after backlash
https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/30/github_copilot_ads_pull_requests/
Microsoft will probably try to sneak it back in later. They've done that with other intrusions.
Migrating away from Github just increased in priority.
Did you mean to link the parent HN comment from someone on the copilot team?
Talking about doing it is virtue signaling.
Don't just say, do! If you have a popular repository, share news of your migration to drive others to do the same.
VOTE WITH YOUR FEET, PEOPLE!
Yes. Like they did with the githubsearch for users that are not logged in.
At first, they brought it back. Then they changed to limits so you get between zero and two searches before getting an error message that you have hit some kind of limit.
Calling advertisements "product tips" as if everybody is too stupid to understand what that means.
They created an amazing technology that oftentimes is indistinguishable from magic and then use it to deliver ads and - sorry about the tangent - kill people.
This really is the quote of the century:
> The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads
What a waste.
And nobody has ever bought anything just because of an ad.
You either already knew about shit through some other way or you were going to buy it anyway.
Only people downvoting this will be the ones who perpetuate this Emperor With No Clothes racket.
It's just a thin veil for surveillance.
People buy things because of ads all the time. Probably you've done it too.
I go out of my way not to buy products advertised to me, but I've definitely fallen to the incessant brain-washing of brand advertising. Probably regular advertising too depending what you include as adverts.
I was surprised speaking to someone the other day, just out and about. They'd purposefully gone out to buy doughnuts they'd seen advertised. Kinda shook me. They seemed happy as Larry about it all though.
> I go out of my way not to buy products advertised to me
The most likely way to get me to not buy your product is to advertise it to me.
The thing that really messed with me recently was when I started thinking deeply about the fact that I’ve been seeing so many Southwest ads about their switch to assigned seating…
I realized that they probably made that whole change, along with all of the ads, because they knew it would spark mild outrage and discussion from people who saw it — they’d discuss if assigned seating is actually better or worse than the previous fist-come-fist-serve system. I can understand either angle but I liked that they were different than other airlines, etc.
But really it’s because they removed the free checked bags that had been their policy forever, now you need to pay like any other airline. Which completely ruins their value prop. But by advertising the seating changes so heavily for months, they make you forget about that part that actually makes a much bigger difference in the experience
> They created an amazing technology that oftentimes is indistinguishable from magic and then use it to deliver ads
The people who created the tech and the ones that use it for ads in this case are two different groups - the first one is from Google (initial discovery) and OpenAI (realizing the potential of discovery and developing it into a product), whereas the second is the same company that decided that building ads into an operating system is an excellent idea.
> sorry about the tangent
I understand why you felt the need to do it, but it’s still sad that you have to apologise for it. It’s not like if using technology for killing is a fringe hypothesis, it’s happening right now and on the news. It’s a discussion worth having.
> This really is the quote of the century
I loathe that quote. The people thinking about how to make others click ads are only concerned with themselves and their own profit. To me that does not qualify as a “best mind”. Maybe a “smart” or “good at computers” or “good at manipulation” mind, but certainly not “best”. A “best mind” should be capable of empathy and have a broad societal view of consequences for their actions.
> A “best mind” should be capable of empathy and have a broad societal view of consequences for their actions
Empathy and introspection are so 20th century. They are a hindrance when your aim is to make as much money and put it on fire as quickly as possible. Because somehow that’s how we decided to measure success.
So when is society gonna start thinking of us in return? Where are our rewards?
It's a rotten world out there. Everything is corrupt. Taking the moral high ground is an enormous sacrifice. In the best case scenario, society will just laugh at you for it. Chances are they will actually fight you since your moral stand will probably get in the way of their profitable schemes.
I find it increasingly hard to blame people for playing the game. The reality is that the honest man is punished while the corrupt man is rewarded.
> I loathe that quote
I thought this quote was a direct invocation of Howl / Ginsberg, “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness”.
Seen in that light I think there’s another layer to it.
> GitHub does not and does not plan to include advertisements in GitHub
They already did! https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/65245