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

591–600 of 845 posts

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

#591

Post by mdup »

What worries me the most in this thread is the quantity of GIFs, memes, and blatantly useless "me too, lol" comments. Can you relate how A MESSAGE WRITTEN IN CAPS makes you feel the author is shouting? Well, in the exact same way, those ridiculous pictures and messages feel to me like teenagers joining a conversation with childish jokes adding nothing to the debate, except noise.

Honestly, this looks more like a YouTube comment thread than a community of professionals discussing grown-ups issues.

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

#592

Post by dmansen »

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…

the context would be obvious. your hypothetical is a silly fiction

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

#593

Post by to3m »

_jgdh wrote: post #511
to3m wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, they aren't. Git means "bastard", which I find awfully discriminatory towards people brought up by single parents. How will they ever feel comfortable in contributing to open source if all open source development happens on Github?

You're a bastard - in the strict sense - which is uncommonly used nowadays, other than mischievously - if born out of wedlock. Being brought up by a single parent is a separate matter.

Urban dictionary has a definition for git that is a bit closer to how I've always understood it. See #2: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Git

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

#595

Post by codygman »

pron wrote: post #354
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…

I'm not saying that this particular case is reasonable, but: > Who decides what is and is not appropriate? Common sense. For millennia, human society has regulated itself by employing common sense, civility and good judgement. It's not that hard, really, even without a foolproof mathematical algorithm. Sometimes mistakes are made, but that's just how we people roll. If you accidentally go beyond the confines of civil…

Agreed on all counts, I really don't get why you're being downvoted. Not that we care about internet karma, more that I wonder why others disagree with the points you've made.

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

#596

Post by kefka »

DanBC wrote: post #559
kefka wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I think of someone who is "offended", I think the following: "Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't control your emotions, so everyone else should do it for you."

When I see someone who doesn't care about language I think the following: "I'm too stupid and lazy to use language creatively so I'll fall back on my stupid and lazy language. I can say what I like, and I'm going to try to deny you the same right. Some bollocks about SJWs and Leftists goes here".

Because I'm a supporter of all language, especially hate speech. Or the communist speech back in the 50's. Or Snowden's speech about violations of our government against us.

Banning thoughts and words, as you seem apt to suggest, is how we migrate away from the principles of the 1st amendment. Of course, you will be wont to tell me that a private company isnt bound by them. Indeed.

But where do we stop? It may be vogue to silence the KKK, which is pretty established for hate speech and actions. But what then? Who decides amongst us what hate speech is and isnt? How far do we go down this rabbit hole? The answer is, "We wont" from SCOTUS.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/tp/Hate-Speech-C...

[F]reedom of speech...," Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the 5-4 majority, is "protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest ... There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view."

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

#597

Post by pkinsky »

zurn wrote: post #357
thaumasiotes wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 reas…

No, government censorship is qualitatively different. It is specially regulated for good reason. The term isn't even usually applied in contexts like this one. This here is usually called moderation or content policy or editorial standards etc. And most people don't consider it a bad thing. But certainly are arguments for largest market share holders to have some kind of neutrality standards, like implemented in comm…

>The term isn't even usually applied in contexts like this one. This here is usually called moderation or content policy or editorial standards etc. And most people don't consider it a bad thing.

This is false. Facebook's ban on photos showing female nipples is constantly referred to as censorship.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lina-esco/facebook-war-on-nipp...

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

#598

Post by jgrowl »

I would never use the word retard as an insult to someone with disabilities. I would use the word to describe things I find stupid. Even if I did find the word retard offensive, I wouldn't like what github did here.

Yes, they have the right to remove words they don't like. Yes, I have the right to not use their platform.

Github's time as a central source for code is limited anyway. If you don't like what they do contribute to projects that make the web more decentralized.

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

#599

Post by _jgdh »

to3m wrote: post #593
_jgdh wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they aren't. Git means "bastard", which I find awfully discriminatory towards people brought up by single parents. How will they ever feel comfortable in contributing to open source if all open source development happens on Github?

You're a bastard - in the strict sense - which is uncommonly used nowadays, other than mischievously - if born out of wedlock. Being brought up by a single parent is a separate matter. Urban dictionary has a definition for git that is a bit closer to how I've always understood it. See #2: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Git

I misspoke when I implied that all children brought up by single parents are bastards. In any case, my point stands. Github makes children born out of wedlock feel unwelcome and they should change their name.
Post reply on HN