heh, with some clever social engineering and timing this could actually become a new form of attack. A lot of scripts (and Gemfiles and other things) point directly to projects on Github. Imagine an attacker managing to sneak a subtle offensive thing into a PR and get it merged in, then later complain to Github at a time when the repo owner is busy/unresponsive/on holiday. Then all the scripts or Gemfiles trying to pull down the repo fail.
GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
161–170 of 845 posts
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#162That means Chromium could not be hosted on GitHub anymore. The source contains 42 instances of "retard". So do probably many massive codebases. Example: predictor.h line 537: "The queue is a priority queue that will accelerate sub-resource speculation, and retard resolutions suggested by page scans." https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/c...
Completely different definition of the word. Not applicable or comparable.
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#163github is within their rights to do this but it's horrendous that they are doing it. The corpus of offensive speech (or code in this case) is getting out of hand. The code is clearly humor. Not everyone appreciates the same humor but humor is _meant_ to be offensive. So, the policy will proceed to be no humor in code that isn't bland. But, then, all of silicon valley is moving toward this. A github founder got into a…
Martin Niemöller's quote[1] is an important one, possibly even more so today than when he first said it. We're so caught up in our own selfish bubbles, we're failing to consider those around us.
There are many variations of the saying - several from himself, but the best known version goes:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
[Edit 1] Removed editorialization.
[Edit 2] Reverted it. Isn't that what this whole discussion is about? Being able to say unpopular things?
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it is censorship. The idea that private companies can't engage in censorship is incorrect, and in conflict with the definition of the word. Doesn't make it bad, necessarily, but it is censorship.
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information The argument is it isn't suppression because as a private company, people can still choose to engage in that speech elsewhere. The government can actually make laws to stop people from saying certain things in any context. When a private company does it, they can only do it in the medium they control and for people who choose to use th…
From the same wiki article you're quoting from -
"Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship"
It's simply incorrect to say that private companies cannot engage in censorship.
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#165For people who don't see what's wrong here. The issue is not about whether the word 'retard' is or is not offensive to anyone. You need to consider that GitHub currently hosts a large percentage of the web's open source repositories. This is censorship plain and simple, something that IMO has no place in open source. The issue is that there are plenty of things some people might find offensive on GitHub but you dont…
One of the main things to keep in mind is that GH is a business. Businesses avoid negative controversies.
That said, politically correctness has the basic potential to just push these human tendencies internally. It's saying some people are too primitive and thus these things have to be made into taboos rather than let it be part of human communication flotsam.
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
A private company choosing not to allow content for whatever reason is not censorship . People who choose to use the word "retard" are not a protected class, Github can ban this word as they see fit.
Yeah there was this bakery I think that didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding. That's ok too right? Or should we burn down their business?
Their refusal did not constitute censorship, if that's what you're asking.
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
A private company choosing not to allow content for whatever reason is not censorship . People who choose to use the word "retard" are not a protected class, Github can ban this word as they see fit.
False. When Trey Parker and Matt Stone wished to show Muhammad in South Park Comedy Central overruled them and placed a big black censored box over Muhammad in the cartoon. If you want to say that a black box with the word censored doesn't qualify as censorship then you're retarded. You are ever correct that GitHub can ban the word if they want. They're fully within their legal right to do so.
> If you want to say that a black box with the word censored doesn't qualify as censorship then you're regarded.
This is a definition of censorship that removes any useful descriptive meaning from the word. It's not censorship when I refuse to listen to offensive things or refuse to repeat them to others or allow you to graffiti it on the side of my house. Similarly, it's not censorship when a private company declines to let you use its private resources to say whatever you want.
The difference between these types of "censorship" and scary, actual government censorship is that GitHub doesn't have the authority to hold a gun to your head and compel you to be quiet. You can take your repo and host it privately and say whatever you want. Comedy Central didn't have the authority to compel Trey Parker and Matt Stone to be quiet. Parker and Stone could have terminated their contracts and posted a Mohammed cartoon through some other channel.
You rob censorship of its depth of meaning -- compulsory silencing by force -- when you apply it to private actors choosing not to use their private resources to promote others' speech.
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, a search for "retard" in code on GitHub yields over 200,000 results: https://github.com/search?q=retard&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93 Not sure what made this particular case different.
Or, decidedly even more offensive: https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=nigger&type=Code&...
Most of those are badwordlists.
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think standards of professionalism have a place in open source, or on GitHub?
"standards of professionalism" are used as a device of exclusion. It has a fairly narrow definition now, but that will change, just like the words "racist", "sexist" and "homophobic". You used to have to perform an action of actual malice to be accused of those things. Now, all you have to do is make an honest mistake and the entire internet's on you like jackals.
When are you referring to? Of course nobody jumped on you like jackals before you had a global platform to offend people. You used to have to look someone in the face to offend them. Then we invented writing and the world changed.
>"standards of professionalism" are used as a device of exclusion
Indeed. You exclude the behavior that doesn't mesh well with your goals. Every law, standard, and community that has ever existed has been used as a device of exclusion. Hacker News is a device of exclusion. That's not a bad thing.
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#170I don't like framing this debate in the prism of government versus private company policing. Freedom of speech is not mutually exclusive to the government.
Consider a programming club meeting once a week that is open to the public. You get there and it's 6 dudes and they are accepting of you as a coder but completely at odds with you on the social justice spectrum (using words like "gay" and "retard" as examples). You have two choices at this point. Either accept the group for who they are or leave.
This is the context in which I see Github. There's a reason why Linus can run his mouth. It's because to the old "boys" club of programmers only results matter and not the social context of the group.
They have no problem with Linus using their service while running his mouth. Why are they picking on this group in particular? It's quite simple. They are small and not important.
Let me be clear. This is very very bad for open source. Github was once considered the automatic public place to share your code. For the most part most projects live in the world of a few singular coders who put their code out to the world for sharing sake and maybe to possibly intrigue others to join their project. Many of these guys are sitting in their bedrooms or garages hacking away and not looking to open themselves up to the SJW crowd when publishing their code. Regardless of what you think of the people doing the coding (which is reflected in the comments) the point of Github was to improve the accessibility of code. I fear this move will take that mission in the opposite direction.
Successful software is almost always filled with expletives. The device you are browsing this very site almost certainly had at least one fuck in it's source code somewhere in the stack.
Just look at the Linux Kernel http://www.vidarholen.net/contents/wordcount/