4 ms·

Censoring Github repositories because they provide suicide methods which is unlawful in Russia, and censoring thepiratebay because it provides access to copyrig

by seszett 12y ago

Censoring Github repositories because they provide suicide methods which is unlawful in Russia, and censoring thepiratebay because it provides access to copyrighted content which is unlawful in France, are exactly the same things. The legal reasons behind the censorship are not important here, it all basically comes down to whether Github recognizes the local law of countries it serves content to, or not.

lsaferite 12y ago
The bigger problem then becomes, if they cater to the laws of every country they serve content into then you have this lowest common denominator of laws EVERY user of github would have to follow. If I post suicide methods in English, would that be censored? If I post inflammatory information about Chinese or Indian politicians, would that censored? When you start censoring, where do you draw the line? When you start allowing countries to extend their jurisdiction into 'cyberspace' how could you ever expect to not fall afoul of SOME law in SOME country. Do you only extend those concessions to large countries? Ultimately it's github's decision to make in this case, but companies should have more than profit (or marketshare) in mind. I find censorship repugnant. While I understand you have to comply with the laws of a country in which you are physically located, I think that should be the extent to which you accommodate things like this.
- LLWM 12y ago
  There's a very simple middle ground of only restricting access to unlawful materials for the users of the jurisdictions where that material is illegal. That's what github did, and that's what twitter did. The service as a whole isn't the lowest common denominator, it's just customized to your own local laws.
- agersant 12y ago
  > The bigger problem then becomes, if they cater to the laws of every country they serve content into then you have this lowest common denominator of laws EVERY user of github would have to follow. Their system is IP-based so censorship is customized depending on where you access Github from.

by seszett 12y ago

lsaferite 12y ago

The bigger problem then becomes, if they cater to the laws of every country they serve content into then you have this lowest common denominator of laws EVERY user of github would have to follow. If I post suicide methods in English, would that be censored? If I post inflammatory information about Chinese or Indian politicians, would that censored? When you start censoring, where do you draw the line? When you start allowing countries to extend their jurisdiction into 'cyberspace' how could you ever expect to not fall afoul of SOME law in SOME country. Do you only extend those concessions to large countries? Ultimately it's github's decision to make in this case, but companies should have more than profit (or marketshare) in mind. I find censorship repugnant. While I understand you have to comply with the laws of a country in which you are physically located, I think that should be the extent to which you accommodate things like this.

LLWM 12y ago
There's a very simple middle ground of only restricting access to unlawful materials for the users of the jurisdictions where that material is illegal. That's what github did, and that's what twitter did. The service as a whole isn't the lowest common denominator, it's just customized to your own local laws.
agersant 12y ago
> The bigger problem then becomes, if they cater to the laws of every country they serve content into then you have this lowest common denominator of laws EVERY user of github would have to follow. Their system is IP-based so censorship is customized depending on where you access Github from.