GitHub is not a public benefit organization. They are not public infrastructure. They are a for-profit company that does what's best for Github. Just because they have free (as in beer) hosting doesn't make them trust-able public infrastructure. It's worrying that so much of today's free and open source software development community doesn't seem to understand that.
GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
581–590 of 845 posts
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#582Earlier 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…
Sooo, what you're saying is that it's OK for any company to ignore any rights of yours that they don't agree with? Interesting. Of course, it isn't illegal, but does that still mean they should do it?
> It isn't illegal, but does that mean they should still do it?
Exactly. They're a private company, they're free to do whatever they want within the legal limits. The argument isn't whether they're allowed to do it (whether the first amendment applies here), but rather, should they do it?
I say probably not. In many cases, morals/ethics are subjective and should not be enforced upon others. The key word is enforced -- I'm all for them contacting the user and saying "Listen, man, this isn't cool -- please change it."
In general, I'm against the enforcement of personal morals upon others, except in obvious circumstances (we probably shouldn't hurt/kill/steal from/etc. each other). Discussion and debate is cool, enforcement is not.
And just as the company itself has the right to censor whatever it pleases, its users have the right to stop using their services when they feel that the company is infringing on their rights -- which is what a lot of people here are saying (they're not saying "this is bad, the company should get in trouble for it," they're saying "this is bad, I refuse to do business with a bad company").
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#583For 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…
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…
This is the great detractor from using anything in the cloud. Companies/groups/projects/developers should host things internally, themselves and that way they can control the whole process from soup to nuts. Depending on any cloud company, especially a private one is a massive gamble they don't decide to pull the rug out from under you on a whim.
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#584Earlier 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…
> The word was offensive. It's not offensive to me, or a lot of people I know. I can think of far more offensive words to use for disabled people, but retard is just colloquial slang now AFAIC.
oh cool - hey everybody! this guy says it's okay!!
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#585Earlier quoted context omitted.
Words do cause harm. It's a failure of imagination to think otherwise. When you use the word retard you dehumanise people with LD. You contribute to a culture where it's okay to deny those people work; to segregate them in specialist housing; to deny them medical treatment; to kill them with lack of medical treatment. It's a slippery slope to eugenics and genocide to think otherwise.
You guys may be thinking about two different contexts: 1. calling someone with a disability a retard (which I would never, ever do) 2. using the word "retarded" in a generic sense. For example: I may have called my kids retarded, in exasperation, for doing something nonsensical. Not elegant, but has been used as a figure of speech, of sorts, for ever. My problem with censoring words (and political correctness in gene…
> a lot of racists (and reverse-racists, it needs to be said)
No such thing as reverse racists, it's all just racism and racists.
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#586Everyone is offended by something; every snowflake has a trigger. If we start censoring because someone might be offended, ultimately everyone will be silent.
The irony here is that GIT is British english for idiot. Github is therefore the network of idiocy.
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#587Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, we seem to have a problem with definitions. I use definition of "censorship" that people use when they think that "censorship is bad". Because this definition implies that this kind of censorship affects everyone and they can't do anything about it. The other definition of censorship, that also includes private companies and people restricting some materials in their own domain can also be used — that seems to be…
Eh, seems to me there are lots of situations where censorship by private companies is a problem. For example, if Chinese banks / communication companies / whatever refuse to do business with human rights groups, that's a bad thing even if the companies acted without being explicitly ordered to by the government. And just because newspapers and TV stations are privately owned, doesn't mean it's a good thing if they al…
I agree that it's not bad for them to not publish it [edit: I mean, not bad for the kids books publisher to not publish the 4 Chan book of shock images and racist jokes] (probably good actually), but does that mean it isn't censorship?
It seems like the only things which might be why it isn't "censorship" would be because either we like it (or it is objectively good by some reasoning) (which would be a terrible definition of censorship), or because there are sufficiently many comparable other options.
So, it seems that either some censorship is good, or whether something is censorship depends on what the other options for publication are?
I guess that conclusion (that or statement) is reasonable?
Thoughts?
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#588Earlier quoted context omitted.
This repository doesn't belong to you. For all intents and purposes this is a private conversation in public. Not to mention going out of their way and report it to the Githapo to have them take it down. This is insane. I'm I the only one who sees the insanity of grown adults shitting their pants over vulgarity?!
I'm genuinely curious, why do you take the view that this is a private conversation in public?
It's his/her repo, not being sold, not being advertised, not being linked to specific people e.g harassment.
It's not for YOU to care about.
It's dongle-joke between two friends in the open. Who the fuck are you to act on that? I don't mean you personally, I mean in general.
Don't compare this to racism or hate-crime like someone else did. That's just watering down words.
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#589For 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…
We view this type of censorship as offensive because the word "retard" doesn't carry much weight. Nobody would be fighting for this man's freedom of speech if he littered the code with the word "nigger" or "lynching" One of the executives probably has a son or daughter who is a retard. Makes sense why such censorship can occur. When you own a product, your bias will inevitably saturate into the product. Having a son…
> Personally I agree that "retard" shouldn't be censored because I hate censoring in general. But I also agree that "nigr" shouldn't be touched either.
The people who use the N-word should be called racists and shamed for using it though.
> Defending freedom of speech means defending the right for other people to have dissenting opinions, this includes opinions that are stupid, racist and bigoted.
Yep. Like I said though, those people should openly be called racists and be forced to know how their racism affects others.
Re: GitHub threatens to shut down a repository for using the word 'retard'
#590Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think standards of professionalism have a place in open source, or on GitHub?
Being offended by words is no sign of professionalism.
Being offended by racial slurs is a sign of professionalism. You could extend this to ableist slurs pretty easily. I know I cringe everytime someone (sadly including myself sometimes) uses it since I have a family member that is mentally handicapped.