3 ms·

I'm a programmer and in my opinion "active code", in this context, implies there is actual code expressly written to fulfill a task (i.e., to not allow homosexu

by elpocko 10y ago

I'm a programmer and in my opinion "active code", in this context, implies there is actual code expressly written to fulfill a task (i.e., to not allow homosexuals to match). While in this case, substantial parts are missing (e.g., everything that is required to allow the site to fulfill the needs of LGBT* users). Should we call something that does not even exist "active"? Edit: after thinking about it for a bit, I'm quite sure the site probably actually does have at least one clause written, somewhere, to make sure only men + women match. Simply removing them wouldn't result in good UX though :)

aethertron 10y ago
I program too. I get your perspective, I think. If we looked at the site's source code, we (probably) wouldn't be able to identify any specific lines of code that were actively anti-LGBT. To see the complainant and the court's perspective, look at the functionality of the site at a higher level. What does it do? It lets people match up for dating purposes. LGBT people - a specific historically-discriminated-against group - could find this as a useful service too. But the site software lacks the necessary functionality to enable this -- and it doesn't need to be this way. So where's the 'active' exclusionary code? There in the program, considered as a functional whole, not located at any more specific location.