5 ms·
Voluntarily choosing not to say something is preference, not self-censorship. For example, some people choose not to swear because they don't like swears. That
by burkaman 2y ago
Voluntarily choosing not to say something is preference, not self-censorship. For example, some people choose not to swear because they don't like swears. That is just a preference, self-censorship is when you want to swear but don't because of external pressure.
Nobody was forced to stop using master/slave, some companies just chose not to because that was their preference. They didn't want to use the word slave anymore. It's reasonable to call it pointless or performative, but I don't think any of the decision-makers at these companies were forced into it. Most companies did not change anything, and they faced absolutely no consequences.
I'm sure there were some (for example) GitHub employees who didn't agree with the decision and maybe felt censored, but basically every company on the planet has standards for language in the workplace, so in that sense every company is guilty of censorship. GitHub did not force any of its users to do anything, you could still use whatever language you want, and you can search "slave" right now to see how common it still is.
- Dylan16807 2y ago> GitHub Let's not mix up issues though. Removing 'master' in git has much less justification than removing master/slave terminology.
- orf 2y agoNobody removed “master” from git though
- Dylan16807 2y agohttps://github.com/github/renaming https://github.com/github/renaming https://www.theserverside.com/feature/Why-GitHub-renamed-its-master-branch-to-main https://www.theserverside.com/feature/Why-GitHub-renamed-its... They did stuff. Plenty qualifies as "removing". (And I didn't say they reached out and changed the entire world.) And unlike master/slave, it's fake inclusivity.
- orf 2y agoCool story, nobody removed “master” from git though
- Dylan16807 2y agoThey did (and encouraged) a lot of "removing". Which is different from saying they "removed", because "removed" sounds like 100% removal. They didn't 100% remove, but that's not my argument, only a strawman of it. So will you meet me at what I actually meant, or are you going to insist on your own wording that doesn't actually rebut me?
- orf 2y agoGit isn’t GitHub. GitHub changed the default for GitHub, didn’t touch existing projects and made it optional for projects to switch.
- Dylan16807 2y agoI didn't say they did anything to mainline git's source code. Hell, I didn't even say they accomplished their goal. I just criticized the goal, not just for github but for everyone else doing the same thing. And the goal is about git repos. Lots of those are on github, and lots of those are influenced by the things github did. TL;DR: Lots of people removed "master" from git repos.
- philipov 2y ago> Lots of people removed "master" from git repos. So because a lot of people chose to no longer use "master" in their git repos, it justifies an authoritarian rollback of science and health? No one cares what their git branches are called. Get that stupid chip off your shoulder and smell the fire. The country is burning.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
- burkaman 2y agoThe justification is irrelevant. You can think it's as dumb as you want to, it still isn't censorship if nobody is being forced to do anything.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y agoAre you pretending that the previous administrations did not lean on tech companies to directly censor speech - or do you really not know?