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

331–340 of 845 posts

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

#331

Post by johncolanduoni »

mukyu wrote: post #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…

> 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.

Note that that ruling does not establish that the first amendment provides the protection of free speech from a private company. It ruled that the California constitution did so, and was in fact allowed to expand upon the rights provided by the US constitution.

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

#332

Post by [deleted] »

mukyu wrote: post #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…

[deleted]

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

#333

Post by tachion »

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…

There are competitive services available, you know. You could host yourself with Gitweb, Gitlab or if that's not your cup of tea, then simply switch to Bitbucket - they're even allowing private repos for free! Vote with your legs.

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

#334

Post by DanBC »

deciplex wrote: post #320
golergka wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Self-censorship only has value when people fear retribution by government.

"I won't use the word retard in my project hosted on github because github's TOS prevents it" is not self-censorship in any meaningful sense of the word. (Just as "Github doesn't let me spam all these users" is not Github censoring people.) Nothing is stopping you from hosting the repo in a wide number of other places.

"I won't insult my employer in this or that nation, because I risk a jail term" is self censorship.

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

#335

Post by DanBC »

scarlson wrote: post #173
tracker1 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Github is itself using an offensive term... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang)

They also gladly index and help you find brainfuck repos. I can't say fuck on TV, but it's ok on Github. I can't say retard on Github, but it's ok on TV. I'm glad we've accomplished something here.

Doesn't that reassure you?

Assuming this letter is true: they're not stopping you from using offensive words, they're stopping you from using a very small set of words because those words contribute to a culture that cause actual harm.

TV is a poor example: it's fine to make jokes about male rape on TV, but everyone loses their shit when an obscured nipple is shown.

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

#337

Post by deciplex »

ectoplasm wrote: post #250
PopeOfNope wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just get annoyed when people mistakenly think they have a constitutional right to not be censored. And I say that where, exactly?

You didn't, OP implied it by using the term free speech.

OP implied fuck-all, unless you take the ridiculous view that free speech and the 1st amendment to the US constitution are the same thing. For about the 99th time in this thread, they are definitely fucking not, and any arguments which rest on this assumption are, prima facie, fucking stupid.

E: Because I can't reply anymore, addressed to ectoplasm's reply to this post:

Because I said "fuck"? If that is seriously against the rules of HN then I do genuinely apologize (and will probably stop posting here so much). If it's just because I viciously attacked your argument, well, I'm actually pretty sure you're a wonderful person ectoplasm, and I am sincere in saying that, but the argument you're putting forward is fucking stupid, and ought to be called such. AFAIK that's not breaking any rules.

E2:

I have a reply link - I've hit some posting limit.

Not only stupid people make stupid arguments. You are probably not a stupid person. The line of reasoning of the argument you put forward here, most definitely is.

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

#338

Post by DanBC »

manicdee wrote: post #143
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…

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.

Your first line is wrong. This is not about swearing, it's about using a word that causes harm.

> Then they came for me, and there was none left to speak out.

...apart from the vast majority of people, because most people don't feel the need to use words like nigger or retard in their open source projects.

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

#339

Post by lazzlazzlazz »

msoad wrote: post #283

Meanwhile the guy with Hitler profile picture is still enjoying GitHub despite multiple reports! https://github.com/followtheart

Who cares about this? If you felt the need to "report" an image of Hitler, you should feel very silly.

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

#340

Post by ectoplasm »

deciplex wrote: post #337
ectoplasm wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't, OP implied it by using the term free speech.

OP implied fuck-all, unless you take the ridiculous view that free speech and the 1st amendment to the US constitution are the same thing. For about the 99th time in this thread, they are definitely fucking not, and any arguments which rest on this assumption are, prima facie, fucking stupid. E: Because I can't reply anymore, addressed to ectoplasm's reply to this post: Because I said "fuck"? If that is seriously aga…

Somewhat appropriately, your comment is against the rules of Hacker News.

> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.

edit: To reply without a reply link, you have to click on the timestamp. Your comment wouldn't be civil even if you elided every instance of 'fuck'. Who makes a stupid argument? A stupid person. You didn't really viciously attack anything, you just said I was stupidly wrong.

edit2: What does it even mean for an argument to be stupid? That's not very convincing. Your arguments are also stupid. So we tie?

p.s. I wasn't really offended or anything, I just think it's good for property rights to trump free speech, and the HN rules are an example of that.

Post reply on HN