Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

311–320 of 845 posts

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

#311
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm imagining a nightmare scenario where, by some vauge unwritten and immature consensus mechanism, we rationalize even a slight amount of censorship as being OK.

The actual nightmare scenario is that people with learning disability are killed by doctors because those doctors think "retards have no quality of life". When people toss around the word retard they contribute to a culture that doesn't care about the high levels of violent hate crime experienced by people with a learning disability. And most posts seem to miss the point: their servers, their rules. No one is stoppin…

> The actual nightmare scenario is that people with learning disability are killed by doctors because those doctors think "retards have no quality of life". When people toss around the word retard they contribute to a culture that doesn't care about the high levels of violent hate crime experienced by people with a learning disability.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. It simply isn't how language works, never mind political change.

Simple example: "sinister" used to mean left-handed, and by extension, creepy and evil (as was believed by the superstitious in earlier times). Now it no longer means left-handed, but still means creepy and evil. The connotational meaning has become a denotational meaning, because the idea the word used to express is to all intents and purposes gone. Nobody believes such nonsense about left-handed people any more.

Mutatis mutandis, the abolitionists and later civil rights movement did not achieve their aims with regards to racial equality by harassing people for using n-bombs. They fought to change the structural, social reality (slavery, political disenfranchisement, lynchings) that supported the use of such epithets, using all manner of means, from civil disobedience to total war. They had success, albeit not total success.

The idea that you can affect the actual levers of power and privilege in society by imposing overweening social taboos on particular words is a peculiarly modern political disease.

I am not terrifically concerned about whether you can use the word 'retard' on github without incurring the wrath of moderators. (And really guys - github is your resume, I hear. Don't cover it with playground insults.) But it pains me to see plenty of people with some kind of social conscience completely wasting their energy complaining about stuff like this. You want to protect people with mental disabilities? I'm sure there's a state legislature or equivalent near you slashing funds for learning support in schools, or social care, or disability-related welfare benefits (and if it's anything like it is here in the UK, loudmouthed bigots in the press explicitly calling various needy social categories parasites). Cleaning up a github readme is not an adequate substitute.

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

#313
Oh look, it's hackernews! Business graduates discussing at length their irrelevant ideals that no actual developer gives a holy fuck about.

I am removing everything I put on github, right now, and it's a lot. Don't like what their doing? Fuck them, they are popular because we shoved our code into it.

The best part of this all is, I am willing to bet I know what Linus's (the creator of git for all you retards) opinion of this whole thing is.

Fuck you github. fuck you.

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

#314
For those defending Github by pointing out that threatening to shut down this repository was not an act of Congress, and therefore not illegal: you would need many km/s of delta-V to miss the point any more than you already have. Your argument sucks.

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

#315
post #288
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…

That is very sensible. Github is free to impose any arbitrary rule and repo admins are free to use competitor's products. In fact Github cares very little about "offense" but probably only cares about their own profits. Private companies applying this sort of censorship is not a bad thing. For example Apple, Google completely control the apps that will feature in their apps stores. That has actually improved the secu…

There are 53 other repos containing the word retard..

https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=retard

It seems to me they are just singling out a single commit to be a problem, probably because of someone oversensitive complaining about this single commit, not knowing that github is full of what could be considered offensive to some. I am personally very happy we solved all world problems and now can focus on wording in commits.

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

#317
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm imagining a nightmare scenario where, by some vauge unwritten and immature consensus mechanism, we rationalize even a slight amount of censorship as being OK.

The actual nightmare scenario is that people with learning disability are killed by doctors because those doctors think "retards have no quality of life". When people toss around the word retard they contribute to a culture that doesn't care about the high levels of violent hate crime experienced by people with a learning disability. And most posts seem to miss the point: their servers, their rules. No one is stoppin…

>The actual nightmare scenario is that people with learning disability are killed by doctors because those doctors think "retards have no quality of life". Are you...are you talking about abortion for disabled fetuses? Because that's not the doctor's choice, that's the parent's. >When people toss around the word retard they contribute to a culture that doesn't care about the high levels of violent hate crime experienced by people with a learning disability. Citation desperately needed.

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

#318
Aaron Swartz's last interview is really apropos. [1] He discusses how speech has changed and why we should be concerned over private companies' suppressive actions now rather than just governments.

Also, those arguing that governmental assertions of free speech rights only apply to government actions are not familiar with the relevant case law in the US. [2]

Similarly, those claiming that censorship can only be done by state actors are using an incredibly idiosyncratic definition that basically anyone other than a hardcore libertarian would disagree with. [3][4][5] Say it is the 1980s and a college newspaper prints something that upsets someone. They then steal and destroy all copies of that issue once they are printed. How is this action by a non-state actor different enough to be put in another category?

Scott Alexander also has a good read on these issues. [6]

[1] http://www.wired.com/2013/04/aaron-swartz-interview/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

[4] https://www.aclu.org/what-censorship

[5] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Censorship

[6] http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali...

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

#319
post #116
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.

This is a weirdly common kind of thing for people to say. I don't understand what the point is supposed to be. It's still a bad thing. We have prohibitions on the government doing this because it's bad. We don't have prohibitions on people censoring third parties in their own homes, because that would be worse. This is still bad for all the same reasons it would be bad if the government were doing it. We're not criticizing github for doing something illegal. We're criticizing it for doing something wrong.

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

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Censorship does not require an act of Congress. Private entities are perfectly capable of censorship. How else could the term "self-censorship" have any semantic value?
Post reply on HN