I don't know why this is downvoted. The data backs you up: https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/

I'm skeptical about that page's accuracy. For example, if you go to the breakdown tab, it shows Actions having 100% availability when the graph starts (Apr 2016), yet Actions didn't even exist until late 2018, and wasn't GA until a full year after that. So if the math behind the "average" tab is treating NULLs as 100% uptime, this just isn't a correct measurement.

The page also notes it obtains its data from the official status page, but big tech companies have been known to under-report outages. My general sense is they've gotten better about this in recent years; if so, that means historical data will give an erroneously rosy picture of uptime.

▲

the_sleaze_ 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I think we can agree the data is correct enough to ascribe a trend with a strong statistical significance no? Enough to draw a conclusion

▲

evanelias 5 hours ago | parent [-]

We can clearly draw a conclusion that their availability is getting worse, but that's not what your original comment claimed.

You said "I can't really remember any significant downtime before the Microsoft acquisition and the data supports my memories", but my memories differ (as do other commenters), and the accuracy of the supporting data seems questionable.

	▲	the_sleaze_ 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		ok.