5 ms·

He was shadowbanned, not deleted. Also, not as righteous as everyone makes him out to be. The dude was hosting torrents on things like Christchurch shootings i

by chirau 8y ago

He was shadowbanned, not deleted. Also, not as righteous as everyone makes him out to be. The dude was hosting torrents on things like Christchurch shootings in his repos. His content probably violated some terms of service.

jimmy1 8y ago
Eventually, those terms of service will cover not-so-outrageous things. If it happens in media and corporate comms, it's only a matter of time before it trickles down into software. As more and more, cueing my inner George Carlin here, self-indignant, self-righteous SJW pricks (that is, distinguishing between real social justice inclined folk, not those who are mad their college micro-triggered them by having a Westboro baptist guy on campus, or Ben Shapiro) make it into these companies, you will see more draconian measures being taken to police thought. It's not a slippery slope if it is actually happening. My personal opinion we do ourselves a huge disservice by filtering out these things. You should display its grotesqueness. Display the horrors of humanity. Teach people life isn't snowflakes and rainbows and that there actually are terrible, evil people out there, not a sea of undiscovered victims. Evil exists as a virtue in of it self, if not to simply show you what the opposite of evil is. Maybe you don't know what good is, but know that it isn't "that"
- dwild 8y ago
  > Eventually, >It's not a slippery slope if it is actually happening. How can you start a comment with eventually and then end with, it's not a slippery slope it is actually happening? There's a line to trace somewhere between what is acceptable to host and what isn't. You may disagree with WHERE the line is, sure, but there's a line to trace. It can be barely where it's legal in the country hosting that content (which is still open to interpretation, or else we wouldn't have court systems). Now are you disagreeing with a line that include Christchurch shootings content? Then say that, or else, sure it will be someone else that will decide where to trace that line.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
driverdan 8y ago
> The dude was hosting torrents on things like Christchurch shootings in his repos. He had links in gists. What terms does this violate? Shouldn't they remove it or warn him rather than locking / shadowbanning his whole account?
- chirau 8y ago
  He was warned several times before
  - ValdikSS 8y ago
    That's not true.
    - chirau 8y ago
      From your Twitter: "I have other torrents in gists, and I used to have blocked repository for which Github contacted me prior to blocking this exact repository, asking to remove some files from it. This time I've got no notifications and got my account (not a repo/gist/etc) shadowed."
      - ValdikSS 8y ago
        It was only once when my repository got take down by government request, and that time I got a notification prior any actions from Github, after which they restricted access to only said repository from Russia only. I never had problems with data (incl. bittorrent links) in gists or warnings about that.
posterboy 8y ago
Hosting may be done for righteous motivations exactly, if the video is being censored away. There are few good reasons to want to review a crime scene, and many good reasons against watching. There may be no direct reason to watch the video of the crime, and only the indirect chance that it might be important. There may also be perverse incentives or at least a morbid curiosity. Stipulating any of that would be unjust, though. The saving grace would be that clicking on a link is anyone's own responsibility, or the parents in case of child protection. Especially a security researcher and privacy advocate would highlight that fact. The real problem may not be the sensitive feelings but primarily advertisement, an expression of affirmation. Just what does merely hosting a video express? Legally speaking, not formally but morally, the personality rights involved in the content stand against the matter of public interest. Claiming a matter of public interrest over this individually should be neigh impossible. It's rather confusing and contradictory to devalue others privacy, making a stand for privacy, and defending integrity of privacy. ...
ogurechny 8y ago
Remember when techies argued that torrent files or bare content hashes are not the data they are derived from, and all the talk about “illegal numbers”? Yeah, me neither. So even the hearsay about the links to the page that may include magnet links lowers your Chinese-style social credit score if nameless hard-working censor of some “respectable” corporation is triggered by that.

by chirau 8y ago

jimmy1 8y ago

Eventually, those terms of service will cover not-so-outrageous things. If it happens in media and corporate comms, it's only a matter of time before it trickles down into software. As more and more, cueing my inner George Carlin here, self-indignant, self-righteous SJW pricks (that is, distinguishing between real social justice inclined folk, not those who are mad their college micro-triggered them by having a Westboro baptist guy on campus, or Ben Shapiro) make it into these companies, you will see more draconian measures being taken to police thought. It's not a slippery slope if it is actually happening. My personal opinion we do ourselves a huge disservice by filtering out these things. You should display its grotesqueness. Display the horrors of humanity. Teach people life isn't snowflakes and rainbows and that there actually are terrible, evil people out there, not a sea of undiscovered victims. Evil exists as a virtue in of it self, if not to simply show you what the opposite of evil is. Maybe you don't know what good is, but know that it isn't "that"

dwild 8y ago
> Eventually, >It's not a slippery slope if it is actually happening. How can you start a comment with eventually and then end with, it's not a slippery slope it is actually happening? There's a line to trace somewhere between what is acceptable to host and what isn't. You may disagree with WHERE the line is, sure, but there's a line to trace. It can be barely where it's legal in the country hosting that content (which is still open to interpretation, or else we wouldn't have court systems). Now are you disagreeing with a line that include Christchurch shootings content? Then say that, or else, sure it will be someone else that will decide where to trace that line.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

driverdan 8y ago

> The dude was hosting torrents on things like Christchurch shootings in his repos. He had links in gists. What terms does this violate? Shouldn't they remove it or warn him rather than locking / shadowbanning his whole account?

chirau 8y ago
He was warned several times before
- ValdikSS 8y ago
  That's not true.
  - chirau 8y ago
    From your Twitter: "I have other torrents in gists, and I used to have blocked repository for which Github contacted me prior to blocking this exact repository, asking to remove some files from it. This time I've got no notifications and got my account (not a repo/gist/etc) shadowed."
    - ValdikSS 8y ago
      It was only once when my repository got take down by government request, and that time I got a notification prior any actions from Github, after which they restricted access to only said repository from Russia only. I never had problems with data (incl. bittorrent links) in gists or warnings about that.

posterboy 8y ago

Hosting may be done for righteous motivations exactly, if the video is being censored away. There are few good reasons to want to review a crime scene, and many good reasons against watching. There may be no direct reason to watch the video of the crime, and only the indirect chance that it might be important. There may also be perverse incentives or at least a morbid curiosity. Stipulating any of that would be unjust, though. The saving grace would be that clicking on a link is anyone's own responsibility, or the parents in case of child protection. Especially a security researcher and privacy advocate would highlight that fact. The real problem may not be the sensitive feelings but primarily advertisement, an expression of affirmation. Just what does merely hosting a video express? Legally speaking, not formally but morally, the personality rights involved in the content stand against the matter of public interest. Claiming a matter of public interrest over this individually should be neigh impossible. It's rather confusing and contradictory to devalue others privacy, making a stand for privacy, and defending integrity of privacy. ...

ogurechny 8y ago

Remember when techies argued that torrent files or bare content hashes are not the data they are derived from, and all the talk about “illegal numbers”? Yeah, me neither. So even the hearsay about the links to the page that may include magnet links lowers your Chinese-style social credit score if nameless hard-working censor of some “respectable” corporation is triggered by that.