Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 845 posts

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#191

Post by Animats »

thedz wrote: post #116
CoryG89 wrote: post #40

For 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…

1. This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. It is a private company deciding a word was inappropriate. 2. It seems like most in this comment thread agree that this action, as a singular act, is a good thing. The word was offensive. Github asked the repo to change it. They did. The end. 3. As for the larger context, the problem with the frequent use of slippery slope arguments and cries of "ce…

"This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. It is a private company deciding a word was inappropriate."

As a Github user, that kind of thinking worries me. Google Code went away, and Sourceforge started packaging adware and spyware with other people's projects. They could do this because "they were a private company". Now Github's management is starting to throw their weight around. We now need to think about a backup plan in case Github management gets out of line. All their value, after all, is created by others.

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#192

Post by aerovistae »

KirinDave wrote: post #186
aerovistae wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Retard' has no meaning or use? https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=retard&num=10 Also, please be careful how you use the word 'vegetable.' My aunt is in a coma, and many people find that offensive.

> 'Retard' has no meaning or use? Homonyms are not the same word, you ridiculous caricature.

Praytell, what here do you think is being used as a homonym?

Where exactly do you think the word 'retard' as a noun comes from?

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#193

Post by PopeOfNope »

andylei wrote: post #156
manicdee wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First they came for the cussers and swearers, but I didn't speak out because I don't cuss or swear. Then they came for the homophobes and cisgendered bigots, and I cheered them on, because I value diversity. Then they came for the conspiracy theorists, and I didn't speak out because I don't believe the reptoids are evil. Then they came for me, and there was none left to speak out.

the original poem is about how germans systematically eradicated entire racial and political groups. you're comparing it to a website that won't let you save certain content onto their servers.

A website that, at the moment, retains a significant percentage of the entire free and open source software ecosystem. No, it's not quite as bad as genocide, but we're not suggesting putting anybody to death as a result either.

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#194

Post by 0x09 »

avolcano wrote: post #159
joeax wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my concern. Let's say I forked a repo and started contributing to it. I built an app that depends on that repo. Suddenly that repo vanishes because GitHub found it some word in it offensive, and my fork and all my contributions vanish. All because of some line like: var x = getX(); // this is retarded, needs fixing I didn't write the said offensive code nor did I even know it was there, and GitHub possibly doe…

But, in this case, GitHub made an effort to get in contact with the repo owner and warn them of their violation of the TOS before taking action. Why do you believe they wouldn't do the same for you?

> GitHub made an effort to get in contact with the repo owner and warn them of their violation of the TOS before taking action.

This repository had been disabled for several days before this.

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#195

Post by JungleGymSam »

thedz wrote: post #116
CoryG89 wrote: post #40

For 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…

1. This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. It is a private company deciding a word was inappropriate. 2. It seems like most in this comment thread agree that this action, as a singular act, is a good thing. The word was offensive. Github asked the repo to change it. They did. The end. 3. As for the larger context, the problem with the frequent use of slippery slope arguments and cries of "ce…

> 3. As for the larger context, the problem with the frequent use of slippery slope arguments and cries of "censorship" is that people are choosing to die on some pretty ridiculous hills.

> 4. If or when Github actually does something truly abusive of their power to censor, then I'll worry.

This is bizarre. Your thinking goes directly against our human nature: recognize future danger and try to avoid it.

The danger is that you seem to be choosing to not recognize the growing trend towards what are seen as appropriate responses to being offended: shaming, ostracizing, and the forced silence of the "offender".

(edit: formatting)

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#196

Post by ectoplasm »

PopeOfNope wrote: post #180
ascorbic wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And legally you can eject him from your property if he does that.

Yes. What's your point?

OP used the term "free speech" which is a legal term that in the US refers to 1st amendment protections around expression.

Well, free speech laws don't apply to me on your property. It is legal for you to tell me to shut up or get out.

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#197

Post by EugeneOZ »

brandonmenc wrote: post #157
Zikes wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in the literal sense it is censorship, being the suppression of materials deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. A bit like a (likely American) TV censor might "bleep" a word they don't want to expose people's delicate sensibilities to. I mean, that doesn't make it "evil", but a lot of people might say that censorship of any sort is a bit of a grey area. That whole "I disagree wit…

> "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" When it comes down to it, no one would really do this.

Charlie Hebdo did.

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#198

Post by dingaling »

crgt wrote: post #91
nightmiles wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be alright, then, if it said, "WebM for Black People?" It isn't important to quibble over what words we consider offensive in the past, present, or future. The real problem is speaking about a classification of human being as being less than fully human or using those classifications as shortcuts for "inferior." A person with darker skin is no less human than one with lighter skin. Similarly, two people with…

How about the "Idiot's Guide To WebM" or "WebM for Dummies". Are those OK? I guess I'm not seeing the difference..

Some ( many! ) years ago there was a popular how-to entitled something like 'Kerberos for Imbeciles' which I had to save to disk and edit to retitle before printing it in work.

It was a useful guide but several people were offended by the original title.

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#199

Post by thedz »

Animats wrote: post #191
thedz wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. It is a private company deciding a word was inappropriate. 2. It seems like most in this comment thread agree that this action, as a singular act, is a good thing. The word was offensive. Github asked the repo to change it. They did. The end. 3. As for the larger context, the problem with the frequent use of slippery slope arguments and cries of "ce…

"This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. It is a private company deciding a word was inappropriate." As a Github user, that kind of thinking worries me. Google Code went away, and Sourceforge started packaging adware and spyware with other people's projects. They could do this because "they were a private company". Now Github's management is starting to throw their weight around. We now need…

> We now need to think about a backup plan in case Github management gets out of line.

This is a distributed source control system. Keep a clone of the repo somewhere. Your source code is now no longer bound to Github.

Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'

#200

Post by chipsy »

gruez wrote: post #90
smrtinsert wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can do whatever they want, that is the market at work. If enough people find it offensive, they will produce/migrate to an alternative.

sure, they're legally entitled to do whatever they want, but you're failing to consider the most important point: >You need to consider that GitHub currently hosts a large percentage of the web's open source repositories would you be happy if google abused its position as the leading search engine to favor right leaning websites over left leaning websites? what about censoring websites that are "offensive" to muslims…

Or what about if your comment were mass-downvoted on HN? Would you be happy?

The censorship card ultimately falls into a relativistic trap - it's always okay to broadcast hate if it's the speech of you or your friends, because you and I can protest ignorance, humor, or lack of wrongdoing, and your more overtly bigoted friends "are good guys when you get to know them." Criticism of such speech, on the other hand, is never okay, and is "the real censorship". You don't even have to invoke a specific ideological dialogue - it is an everyday occurrence in your homes, schools, and bars.

Now, you can go out there and fight and "win" by making your preferred flavor of speech dominant in your spaces, but that just exposes a different facet of this "gem of truthiness" - it doesn't reveal the whole thing, because you still get the same problem, no matter which side you take.

The typical modern response to this is nihilistic or fanatical, but if you really feel challenged by a hostile environment, why not follow the path of the ancients and turn your speech into a puzzle or parable that hides its true intention? If your ideas are good, they will survive the transition and reach the readers who put in the effort to care and figure it out. OTOH if the whole premise is to police the surface aspects of the dialogue and Be Right, then you're speaking politically, not intellectually, and political speech comes with Consequences regardless of the legal environment.

Post reply on HN