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

301–310 of 845 posts

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

#301

Post by mcintyre1994 »

Animats wrote: post #238
iwwr wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the only reason people use Github. It's the Facebook of programmers in some sense and it's got a critical mass that switching to something else is not practicable (not without some serious momentum).

"It's the Facebook of programmers" Business Insider agrees.[1] Github, Inc. is now valued at $2 billion. Right. Which means we have to worry about Github's management starting to think like Zuckerberg: "All your life is belong to us." [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/github-raises-200-million-wor...

I think this is an unfair jump because they do have a legitimate business model with enterprise revenue - they don't need to start owning your life to continue to exist.

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

#302

Post by ectoplasm »

JungleGymSam wrote: post #139
ectoplasm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is the selective censorship of certain reasonable uses of free speech that is concerning here. Free speech laws don't apply to corporate or private censorship. > Who decides what is and is not appropriate? The owners of the property. Can I come over to your place and say offensive things?

That's willful ignorance of the real issue. This is not an isolated incident. Society is increasingly rejecting any and all "offensive" language and behavior. Should we all be nice and respectful to each other? Yes, of course. Are people that way? No. Can we police ourselves fairly and achieve a society that is not offensive? Absolutely not.

> Can we police ourselves fairly and achieve a society that is not offensive? Absolutely not.

Hacker News is a pretty nice place.

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

#303

Post by golergka »

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…

It is not a "kind of thinking", it is a simple statement. The word "censorship" doesn't work here. You may still argue that you don't like that Github behaves like that: the statement that you quoted doesn't oppose that view.

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

#304

Post by golergka »

PopeOfNope wrote: post #193
andylei wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a government, it doesn't have a monopoly on violence or information. People use it freely, and they can easily get most of their information out (wikis and issues no, but it's obvious that they are not part of the repo when you start to use it).

You can argue that it's bad, but for fuck's sake, don't compare it to a totalitarian regime that killed tens of millions of people. Please.

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

#305

Post by jlarocco »

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…

1. Nobody is saying what GitHub did was illegal or not allowed.

2. My biggest complaint about blocking the word is that they singled out this one guy. Even the parent repo still has "retard" and is still available. How ridiculously arbitrary is that? As a GitHub user do I have to worry that maybe one day somebody at GitHub will get butthurt and randomly disable my account over a technicality? Either make the rules apply to everybody, or don't bother having them.

3. Nobody is "choosing to die on some pretty ridiculous hills" over this. People are posting on the internet saying that it's stupid.

4. So you don't mind when you agree with GitHub, but you'll worry when you disagree with GitHub.

Private company or not, it's as much my right to say, "Hey, I think that's bullshit," as it is for them to remove content from their website.

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

#306

Post by x1024 »

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.

Censorship always starts small.

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

#307

Post by golergka »

Github is a private company and they have the right to do that. However, as their customer (I pay them a little every month myself and I also work for a company that pays them a lot), I don't like that behaviour and I would start think about switching to other company's services if they continue to do that.

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

#308

Post by to3m »

dwc wrote: post #110
BetaMechazawa wrote: post #47

This obsession with making every single website a hugbox these days is moronic. The word retard/retarded is seldom associated with actual retardation instead it's just a synonym for moron. Even if you dissagree with that you should still be able to see that even if we did s/retard/moron/ or replaced it with git, idiot etc it would still violate the TOS.

> or replaced it with git Thank you so much for that. The irony is delicious.

'Git' and 'retard' aren't really substitutes...

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

#309

Post by om2 »

ectoplasm wrote: post #196
PopeOfNope wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Free speech as a concept isn't just about the first amendment and isn't just about the law. Free speech can be defended on any number of grounds, and many of them apply equally to privately enforced speech restrictions. For example, consider John Stuart Mill, one of the founding figures of modern liberal thought. In On Liberty, his spirited defense of free speech, he argued that shunning or widespread ostracism for expression of particular views was a danger, and would ultimately harm a society that engaged in it, even if the views being suppressed were obviously wrong.

"Free speech is only first amendment" is a shallow and ignorant view of the intellectual tradition of free expression.

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

#310

Post by deciplex »

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…

> 1. This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. It is a private company deciding a word was inappropriate.

This is about the dumbest argument in favor of censorship theoretically possible, btw. Free speech doesn't start and stop at the first amendment to the US constitution.

> 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.

Actually I see a lively debate as opposed to the general consensus you're suggesting. Trying to win an argument by disingenuously suggesting your opponent's opinion is unpopular, is an underhanded tactic even when you're right. It's plainly stupid when you're wrong.

> 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.

No one cares about other arguments you've had on the Internet in the past. Stay on topic.

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

After heaps of projects are already hosted there, and switching to something more open becomes a larger effort? If that works for you then fine - kindly excuse those of us who take a more proactive stance.

Post reply on HN