3 ms·

I posted this yesterday, it was flagged. Today, I am posting it again because I believe the HN readers will benefit from it. Why? The majority of HN readers wo

I posted this yesterday, it was flagged. Today, I am posting it again because I believe the HN readers will benefit from it. Why? The majority of HN readers work in IT or adjacent information fields; we communicate information with strings aka words.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
donohoe 3mo ago
It has been flagged again after being #1 on frontpage.
torstenvl 3mo ago
[flagged]
- Pulcinella 3mo ago
  the mention of which can now result in research grants or other agreements with the federal government getting nixed. That sounds like censorship to me.
  - torstenvl 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - Pulcinella 3mo ago
      No it's the government deciding what you are and are not allowed to say in your grant.
      - torstenvl 3mo ago
        That string of words is nonsensical. Literally nothing in the OP is talking about "your grant." If you want to start your own grant, either personally or through a foundation you start, nothing in the OP pertains to you. The OP is only about whether the government will endorse speech contained in your application for a government grant, which—again—is categorically different from what you said and fundamentally not censorship.
- fmbb 3mo ago
  There is not simply one government in the US. It seems the federal executive admin is censoring government websites of all levels and branches of government.
- loeg 3mo ago
  Also, it's just clearly not true, even for the government? For example, here is the CDC mentioning Opioids, which are ostensibly "banned:" https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/about/understanding-the-opioid-overdose-epidemic.html https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/about/understanding-... . Similarly, "female:" https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/451-500/db491-fig1.png https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/451-500/db491-fig... Many of the rest are clearly editorial or phrasing preferences (e.g., "Latinx" in place of "Latino/a"), which are reasonable to have; I'm sure any mainstream publication like the NYT also has its own preferred language and style guidelines.
  - torstenvl 3mo ago
    True. And a lot of examples from the previous administration, for example, where you weren't allowed to say "gay" or "equality" or "equal opportunity."
- jaybrendansmith 3mo ago
  Yes, it definitely is censorship, because scientists employed by the government may not report findings, existing government information is being erased, and the public cannot access it. So studies about racial concerns are cancelled, programs measuring the rate of climate change are being cancelled and the data and even the data collecting instrumentation is destroyed. This list of banned words is just one aspect of the censorship ... taken as a whole, this is an unconstitutional censorship of data that has public health and public safety implications. Does it qualify as Hacker News? Well, does Hacker News even exist when we no longer have access to critical data? Is that not topical? And does this kind of post suddenly become relevant when the government starts censoring the website directly? And how would we know when that starts to happen? Are you going to magically send us all letters in the mail? Or will you just silently acquiesce?
  - torstenvl 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - jaybrendansmith 3mo ago
      And that is flat ignorance of all the other context of destruction of data going on right now. Ignoring that research data is being maintained by private citizens to protect it doesn't support your point. Censorship of government websites is just a small piece of this, ignoring it doesn't help anyone but a rank partisan, which you clearly are.
      - torstenvl 3mo ago
        [flagged]
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3mo ago
        Your refusal to look up "censor" in a dictionary doesn't make you right. Some people are actually trying to have a reasoned discussion about the downsides of what the administration is doing, in particular the censorship, which is the problem with articles like this being flagged, especially when it's justified with partisan hyperbole such as what can be found in your comments here.
- nhinck2 3mo ago
  Surely you are not so stupid to misunderstand and ignore the chilling effects of this?
- ModernMech 3mo ago
  Even still, this list is passed around at my university where researchers are censoring their proposals to not include these words. That's called a chilling effect, and it's against the ideals of free speech.
  - torstenvl 3mo ago
    This is a decent point but still falls flat for now. Their proposals are just that: proposals for government-funded speech. That said, it's plausible it could have a chilling effect on their independent research, which is of concern.
    - ModernMech 3mo ago
      > proposals for government-funded speech No, these are public proposals for public money to do public research. There shouldn't be restrictions on want can be funded based on the President's own personal morality. This isn't the "government's" money or Republican money or the Trump administration's money; it's our money, allocated for research that American public decided that scientists and academic institutions, who by dedicating their life to these pursuits and demonstrating excellence in the process, earned the right to conduct. Although the executive branch has the power, they do not have the mandate to impose its own morality on the entire country, that's what Congress is for. I'm not saying every proposal deserves to be funded, but I'm saying proposals should not be denied funding on the basis of capricious, political, partisan, myopic moral crusades. > That said, it's plausible it could have a chilling effect on their independent research, which is of concern. This is more than plausible, it's actually happening at my workplace at least. Very anti free-speech for a party that said they were pro free-speech.
    - estearum 3mo ago
      What? The government has been quite openly going around pulling unrelated funding and launching investigations into educational institutions for similar reasons.
- RobRivera 3mo ago
  A government by the people. Of the people. For the people. That is a fundamental aspect of the American political foundation that the Revolutionary war was waged over.
layer8 3mo ago
Falsehoods programmers believe about strings: All strings are words. More seriously: While I find the topic appropriate for HN, connecting the topicality to the use of strings in IT is weird. If the ban only applied to audio or sign language, the topic wouldn’t be any less appropriate.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

donohoe 3mo ago

It has been flagged again after being #1 on frontpage.

torstenvl 3mo ago

[flagged]

Pulcinella 3mo ago
the mention of which can now result in research grants or other agreements with the federal government getting nixed. That sounds like censorship to me.
- torstenvl 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Pulcinella 3mo ago
    No it's the government deciding what you are and are not allowed to say in your grant.
    - torstenvl 3mo ago
      That string of words is nonsensical. Literally nothing in the OP is talking about "your grant." If you want to start your own grant, either personally or through a foundation you start, nothing in the OP pertains to you. The OP is only about whether the government will endorse speech contained in your application for a government grant, which—again—is categorically different from what you said and fundamentally not censorship.
fmbb 3mo ago
There is not simply one government in the US. It seems the federal executive admin is censoring government websites of all levels and branches of government.
loeg 3mo ago
Also, it's just clearly not true, even for the government? For example, here is the CDC mentioning Opioids, which are ostensibly "banned:" https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/about/understanding-the-opioid-overdose-epidemic.html https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/about/understanding-... . Similarly, "female:" https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/451-500/db491-fig1.png https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/451-500/db491-fig... Many of the rest are clearly editorial or phrasing preferences (e.g., "Latinx" in place of "Latino/a"), which are reasonable to have; I'm sure any mainstream publication like the NYT also has its own preferred language and style guidelines.
- torstenvl 3mo ago
  True. And a lot of examples from the previous administration, for example, where you weren't allowed to say "gay" or "equality" or "equal opportunity."
jaybrendansmith 3mo ago
Yes, it definitely is censorship, because scientists employed by the government may not report findings, existing government information is being erased, and the public cannot access it. So studies about racial concerns are cancelled, programs measuring the rate of climate change are being cancelled and the data and even the data collecting instrumentation is destroyed. This list of banned words is just one aspect of the censorship ... taken as a whole, this is an unconstitutional censorship of data that has public health and public safety implications. Does it qualify as Hacker News? Well, does Hacker News even exist when we no longer have access to critical data? Is that not topical? And does this kind of post suddenly become relevant when the government starts censoring the website directly? And how would we know when that starts to happen? Are you going to magically send us all letters in the mail? Or will you just silently acquiesce?
- torstenvl 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - jaybrendansmith 3mo ago
    And that is flat ignorance of all the other context of destruction of data going on right now. Ignoring that research data is being maintained by private citizens to protect it doesn't support your point. Censorship of government websites is just a small piece of this, ignoring it doesn't help anyone but a rank partisan, which you clearly are.
    - torstenvl 3mo ago
      [flagged]
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3mo ago
        Your refusal to look up "censor" in a dictionary doesn't make you right. Some people are actually trying to have a reasoned discussion about the downsides of what the administration is doing, in particular the censorship, which is the problem with articles like this being flagged, especially when it's justified with partisan hyperbole such as what can be found in your comments here.
nhinck2 3mo ago
Surely you are not so stupid to misunderstand and ignore the chilling effects of this?
ModernMech 3mo ago
Even still, this list is passed around at my university where researchers are censoring their proposals to not include these words. That's called a chilling effect, and it's against the ideals of free speech.
- torstenvl 3mo ago
  This is a decent point but still falls flat for now. Their proposals are just that: proposals for government-funded speech. That said, it's plausible it could have a chilling effect on their independent research, which is of concern.
  - ModernMech 3mo ago
    > proposals for government-funded speech No, these are public proposals for public money to do public research. There shouldn't be restrictions on want can be funded based on the President's own personal morality. This isn't the "government's" money or Republican money or the Trump administration's money; it's our money, allocated for research that American public decided that scientists and academic institutions, who by dedicating their life to these pursuits and demonstrating excellence in the process, earned the right to conduct. Although the executive branch has the power, they do not have the mandate to impose its own morality on the entire country, that's what Congress is for. I'm not saying every proposal deserves to be funded, but I'm saying proposals should not be denied funding on the basis of capricious, political, partisan, myopic moral crusades. > That said, it's plausible it could have a chilling effect on their independent research, which is of concern. This is more than plausible, it's actually happening at my workplace at least. Very anti free-speech for a party that said they were pro free-speech.
  - estearum 3mo ago
    What? The government has been quite openly going around pulling unrelated funding and launching investigations into educational institutions for similar reasons.
RobRivera 3mo ago
A government by the people. Of the people. For the people. That is a fundamental aspect of the American political foundation that the Revolutionary war was waged over.

layer8 3mo ago

Falsehoods programmers believe about strings: All strings are words. More seriously: While I find the topic appropriate for HN, connecting the topicality to the use of strings in IT is weird. If the ban only applied to audio or sign language, the topic wouldn’t be any less appropriate.