4 ms·
I dont know much of the circumstances, but I feel that this particular article hurts Julie Ann Horvath more than it helps. First, it presents a series of tweets
by chacham15 13y ago
I dont know much of the circumstances, but I feel that this particular article hurts Julie Ann Horvath more than it helps. First, it presents a series of tweets, each more vicious than the previous. Then it presents a blatantly wrong example of Github accepting racial slurs and its ilk. However, it continues to talk about how GitHub has actually been improving the culture and that more women have been joining. Next, it presents a rather weak example of 'harassment' that I can even see as the manager trying to do the right thing in his own view but presenting it entirely in the wrong way. Finally, it ends with a tweet that Julie Ann Horvath wants secret to remove a post about her (is anyone else angry about the implicit censorship here?).
Again, I do not know what is happening here, but the article has at the least made me mad that people are resorting to censorship to solve their disputes.
- djur 13y agoCensorship? Slander is illegal.
- renata 13y agoSlander turns out to not be covered under the DMCA, so the hosting site is under no obligation to remove a post after a notice and no trial or court order.
- djur 13y agoBut it might be in their best interests to take it down regardless. The fact that they're not legally compelled to do so makes it even less like censorship.
- renata 13y agoYou don't think it's censorship if at any time, for any reason, someone can induce them to take down any post by claiming libel? Well, I might agree with that, but it would also make every site useless.
- vacri 13y agoThe DMCA is not the only way to have material removed from a website. Also, slander is spoken, libel is written.
- chacham15 13y agoFirst, it would be libel. Second, truth is a defense to libel. Therefore, in order to say that the action was illegal you would have to prove it false. Hence the reason I call it censorship: because there is no proof (or even argument) as to whether or not it is true or false, just a person demanding that it be removed.