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

221–230 of 845 posts

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

#221

Post by Retra »

PopeOfNope wrote: post #188
Retra wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

When are you referring to? Do you use twitter at all? And nobody here jumps on me like jackals because they use downvotes to do that for them. Hacker News is a device of exclusion. That's not a bad thing. You can't claim to be for free and open source software for all humanity, except for those people. Those people aren't ideologically pure, they can't participate. That mindset is why GNU is a footnote in programming…

No, I don't use Twitter. Any communication medium that severely limits the amount of text you can send is going to be prone to miscommunication, aggression, and triteness.

Anyway, nobody is forcing you to not write free and open source software. GitHub doesn't have a problem with the software. Nor are they preventing anyone from getting it or using it. They've erected what I would call a rather trivial obstacle for the developers: use a different term.

I mean, if that's too hard to accept -- if that is what has causes the downfall of GNU -- then we are doomed to fail from the start.

>Code quality, not political ideology.

The world is not black and white. You can have good code quality while making politically favorable decisions.

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

#222

Post by mbillie1 »

Zikes wrote: post #111
mbillie1 wrote: post #93

Earlier 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.

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…

So if a restaurant asks you to leave because you're shouting ethnic slurs, that's censorship? Come on. GitHub is not the entirety of your expressive domain. If you were disallowed by law from saying "retard" I would be sympathetic to this case. As is this entire thread reads like a series of entitled children whinging that their mums told them not to be nasty at school. If you dislike what GitHub has done, host your repo at one of the other free sites that provide this service, and stop insulting people in legitimately oppressive states by equating your churlish valley bigotry with legitimately repressed speech.

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

#223

Post by Asbostos »

euske wrote: post #94

It's sad that they had to "ban" them instead of having the community boycott/ridicule/shun the repo. The latter would be a healthier approach.

Are you saying that bullying and shunning people who don't behave according to social norms is healthy? Isn't that essentially the root of all racism, bigotry, sexism, etc? That's what already happens with large scale trolling of celebrities who become disliked and it can be quite harmful.

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

#224

Post by iwwr »

PopeOfNope wrote: post #209
Lazare wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Github is not a public service; they're a private company. > Who decides what is and is not appropriate? Github does. That's how that works. If you prefer you could try and lobby your government to set up some sort of national source code repo. Maybe you'd find the rules on such a thing more to your liking. (Note: You really, really wouldn't.) Alternatively, you could host your own source code repos, and then you can…

Github is not a public service; they're a private company. They're both. They're a private company that offers a public service. As such, they can't do whatever they want. For example, if they wanted to ban all repos written by black men, that would be illegal. Nobody is suggesting that banning a repo for using a bad word is illegal. A breach of trust, a breach of ethics and a breach of reliability[0], but not illega…

"They're both. They're a private company that offers a public service. As such, they can't do whatever they want."

Strictly from being a company that pursues profits, they can't do "whatever they want" because they want to maintain their userbase.

But, being a private company means they have a "right to do whatever they please" (property rights).

But having a right to do something doesn't mean people can't criticize those decisions or be right in those assessments.

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

#225

Post by ectoplasm »

PopeOfNope wrote: post #211
ectoplasm wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. Now, imagine you're in OP's grocery store. It's still private property, but he provides a public service out of it. Can he still prevent you from shouting at him? Do free speech laws cover privately owned public spaces?

Yes, you can eject someone from a store for being rude.

Your ISP is not allowed to censor content (as far as I know) because it is a common carrier. Google is not a common carrier, they can do what they want. If Google can do it, GitHub can do it.

Note that I don't necessarily think censorship is good. I just get annoyed when people mistakenly think they have a constitutional right to not be censored.

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

#226

Post by anon3_ »

GH already has set a precedent for favoring people based off their political tastes.

- OpalGate: LGBT has been used as an excuse to harass people outside of GH for twitter messages.

- C+=: satirical repository called C+= mocking feminism in tech was Shut down.

- GGAutoBlocker: specifically targets a manifest of twitter targets users based off political persuasion. It's alive. (https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker/blob/master/sou...) This blocker is literally based off targetting people because of their political beliefs.

If you don't fall in line with the politics of certain people, they claim harassment - report your to these services - and get you shutdown.

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

#227

Post by otherusername2 »

Panino wrote: post #102

Lots of misuse of the word "censorship" here and any time this subject comes up generally, not just on this site but anywhere the topic is discussed. What is/are the root issue(s) of this mistaken belief? I typed a few possibilities but they sounded preposterous so I just deleted all that. Could someone who thinks this is censorship please explain why Github doesn't have the right to control its own privately owned w…

Personally I think this is censorship because Github holds power in the development world. Basically every developer is on Github. I switched from Bitbucket to github not because Github is better, but because it's basically open source suicide NOT to be on Github.

Disabling a repo because they don't agree with a word in it seems like an abuse of that power to me.

So basically, I feel it's censorship because Github holds enough power over its users.

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

#228

Post by brandonmenc »

EugeneOZ wrote: post #197
brandonmenc wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

They did not.

Charlie Hebdo did not publish, then get attacked for, content they themselves found offensive.

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

#229

Post by Zikes »

brandonmenc wrote: post #217
Zikes wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think that people would defend to the death one of the basic principles of human rights? To be clear, I'm not saying that Github censoring "retarded" is a human rights issue, but as long as we've gone off the rails let's see where the train comes to a stop.

> You don't think that people would defend to the death one of the basic principles of human rights? A progressive making that claim would never take a bullet so that someone could fly the Confederate flag, for example. It's just not going to happen. They may fight to defend the 1st Amendment, but that's easy because it's a proxy behind which exists all the specific instances of speech they would find horrible along…

Ah, it looks like the train didn't make it very far, did it.

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

#230

Post by otherusername2 »

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…

> It seems like most in this comment thread agree that this action, as a singular act, is a good thing

That's just because those of us who don't are afraid we'll get chewed out here, so we're not commenting.

Post reply on HN