23 ms·

For people who don't see what's wrong here. The issue is not about whether the word 'retard' is or is not offensive to anyone. You need to consider that GitHub

by CoryG89 11y ago

For people who don't see what's wrong here. The issue is not about whether the word 'retard' is or is not offensive to anyone. You need to consider that GitHub currently hosts a large percentage of the web's open source repositories. This is censorship plain and simple, something that IMO has no place in open source. The issue is that there are plenty of things some people might find offensive on GitHub but you dont see them threatening everyone with takedown notices. It is the selective censorship of certain reasonable uses of free speech that is concerning here. Retarded is off limits, but cursing is okay (maybe?). Who decides what is and is not appropriate?

toehead2000 11y ago
A bunch of retards apparently.
numbsafari 11y ago
Github does. If you don't like it, fork it... just not on GitHub.
smrtinsert 11y ago
They can do whatever they want, that is the market at work. If enough people find it offensive, they will produce/migrate to an alternative.
- gruez 11y ago
  sure, they're legally entitled to do whatever they want, but you're failing to consider the most important point: >You need to consider that GitHub currently hosts a large percentage of the web's open source repositories would you be happy if google abused its position as the leading search engine to favor right leaning websites over left leaning websites? what about censoring websites that are "offensive" to muslims?
  - chipsy 11y ago
    Or what about if your comment were mass-downvoted on HN? Would you be happy? The censorship card ultimately falls into a relativistic trap - it's always okay to broadcast hate if it's the speech of you or your friends, because you and I can protest ignorance, humor, or lack of wrongdoing, and your more overtly bigoted friends "are good guys when you get to know them." Criticism of such speech, on the other hand, is never okay, and is "the real censorship". You don't even have to invoke a specific ideological dialogue - it is an everyday occurrence in your homes, schools, and bars. Now, you can go out there and fight and "win" by making your preferred flavor of speech dominant in your spaces, but that just exposes a different facet of this "gem of truthiness" - it doesn't reveal the whole thing, because you still get the same problem, no matter which side you take. The typical modern response to this is nihilistic or fanatical, but if you really feel challenged by a hostile environment, why not follow the path of the ancients and turn your speech into a puzzle or parable that hides its true intention? If your ideas are good, they will survive the transition and reach the readers who put in the effort to care and figure it out. OTOH if the whole premise is to police the surface aspects of the dialogue and Be Right, then you're speaking politically, not intellectually, and political speech comes with Consequences regardless of the legal environment.
    - makomk 11y ago
      Funny, the same thing seems to happen with the "it's not censorship" card. For example, a while ago a social justice activist got banned from Twitter for death threats against Wil Wheaton, and suddenly all the tech industry folks who claimed sites should ban people for harassment were going after Twitter for doing it because it was an approved social justice death threat.
Retra 11y ago
You don't think standards of professionalism have a place in open source, or on GitHub?
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  "standards of professionalism" are used as a device of exclusion. It has a fairly narrow definition now, but that will change, just like the words "racist", "sexist" and "homophobic". You used to have to perform an action of actual malice to be accused of those things. Now, all you have to do is make an honest mistake and the entire internet's on you like jackals.
  - Retra 11y ago
    When are you referring to? Of course nobody jumped on you like jackals before you had a global platform to offend people. You used to have to look someone in the face to offend them. Then we invented writing and the world changed. >"standards of professionalism" are used as a device of exclusion Indeed. You exclude the behavior that doesn't mesh well with your goals. Every law, standard, and community that has ever existed has been used as a device of exclusion. Hacker News is a device of exclusion. That's not a bad thing.
    - PopeOfNope 11y ago
      When are you referring to? Do you use twitter at all? And nobody here jumps on me like jackals because they use downvotes to do that for them. Hacker News is a device of exclusion. That's not a bad thing. You can't claim to be for free and open source software for all humanity, except for those people. Those people aren't ideologically pure, they can't participate. That mindset is why GNU is a footnote in programming history, but everybody knows what linux is. Code quality, not political ideology.
      - Retra 11y ago
        No, I don't use Twitter. Any communication medium that severely limits the amount of text you can send is going to be prone to miscommunication, aggression, and triteness. Anyway, nobody is forcing you to not write free and open source software. GitHub doesn't have a problem with the software. Nor are they preventing anyone from getting it or using it. They've erected what I would call a rather trivial obstacle for the developers: use a different term. I mean, if that's too hard to accept -- if that is what has causes the downfall of GNU -- then we are doomed to fail from the start. >Code quality, not political ideology. The world is not black and white. You can have good code quality while making politically favorable decisions.
ectoplasm 11y ago
> It is the selective censorship of certain reasonable uses of free speech that is concerning here. Free speech laws don't apply to corporate or private censorship. > Who decides what is and is not appropriate? The owners of the property. Can I come over to your place and say offensive things?
- JungleGymSam 11y ago
  That's willful ignorance of the real issue. This is not an isolated incident. Society is increasingly rejecting any and all "offensive" language and behavior. Should we all be nice and respectful to each other? Yes, of course. Are people that way? No. Can we police ourselves fairly and achieve a society that is not offensive? Absolutely not.
  - ectoplasm 11y ago
    > Can we police ourselves fairly and achieve a society that is not offensive? Absolutely not. Hacker News is a pretty nice place.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      This thread, and almost any thread about social issues in technology, demonstrates that it has both nice and awful people hanging out on it.
      - ectoplasm 11y ago
        Perhaps, but what makes it a nice place is the limits on how awful people can be.
    - lordfoom 11y ago
      And yet one is allowed to use the word retard.
- aerovistae 11y ago
  Depends, is his place a known haven for sharing information, specifically designed to encourage and promote openness?
mbillie1 11y ago
A private company choosing not to allow content for whatever reason is not censorship. People who choose to use the word "retard" are not a protected class, Github can ban this word as they see fit.
- toehead2000 11y ago
  Yeah there was this bakery I think that didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding. That's ok too right? Or should we burn down their business?
  - mbillie1 11y ago
    Their refusal did not constitute censorship, if that's what you're asking.
    - marrs 11y ago
      The argument is that Github's censorship is acceptable because those are the terms under which they choose to operate their business and if you don't like it you can go somewhere else (which seems reasonable enough to me). I think toehead2000 was asking how that squares with a bakery not being allowed to operate their business under certain other terms.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  False. When Trey Parker and Matt Stone wished to show Muhammad in South Park Comedy Central overruled them and placed a big black censored box over Muhammad in the cartoon. If you want to say that a black box with the word censored doesn't qualify as censorship then you're retarded. You are ever correct that GitHub can ban the word if they want. They're fully within their legal right to do so.
  - thedz 11y ago
    I think where the confusion comes from is that along with many cries of "censorship", there is often a subtext of "this is illegal" or "this is not allowed".
Lazare 11y ago
Github is not a public service; they're a private company. > Who decides what is and is not appropriate? Github does. That's how that works. If you prefer you could try and lobby your government to set up some sort of national source code repo. Maybe you'd find the rules on such a thing more to your liking. (Note: You really, really wouldn't.) Alternatively, you could host your own source code repos, and then you can set the rules. Edit: More generally, you seem to suggest that a place where a lot of people from different backgrounds come together to try and collaborate and work should be a place with no rules, norms, or even an expectation of basic politeness. Offhand, I'd think the opposite should be true. You're also conflating something like, eg, efforts to get around the Chinese firewall with people who want to use slurs. People have, in my view, in intrinsic right to do both, but these are still not equivalent actions, and you're not going to reach a sensible conclusion until you abandon that moral relativism. Free speech is valuable, but not all speech is equally valuable.
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  Github is not a public service; they're a private company. They're both. They're a private company that offers a public service. As such, they can't do whatever they want. For example, if they wanted to ban all repos written by black men, that would be illegal. Nobody is suggesting that banning a repo for using a bad word is illegal. A breach of trust, a breach of ethics and a breach of reliability[0], but not illegal. [0]: if I were a company, I would be thinking twice about trusting any of my business to Github. If a British employee commits a word that is commonplace in Britain but very offensive in America (like 'fag'), does that mean my repo goes away? Could I mess with another company by purposefully taking one of their commits out of context and creating an internet controversy over it on twitter?
  - iwwr 11y ago
    "They're both. They're a private company that offers a public service. As such, they can't do whatever they want." Strictly from being a company that pursues profits, they can't do "whatever they want" because they want to maintain their userbase. But, being a private company means they have a "right to do whatever they please" (property rights). But having a right to do something doesn't mean people can't criticize those decisions or be right in those assessments.
thedz 11y ago
1. This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. It is a private company deciding a word was inappropriate. 2. It seems like most in this comment thread agree that this action, as a singular act, is a good thing. The word was offensive. Github asked the repo to change it. They did. The end. 3. As for the larger context, the problem with the frequent use of slippery slope arguments and cries of "censorship" is that people are choosing to die on some pretty ridiculous hills. 4. If or when Github actually does something truly abusive of their power to censor, then I'll worry.
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  By the time #4 on your list happens, what makes you think anybody will be listening?
  - andylei 11y ago
    what kind of doomsday scenario are you imagining? all the open source repos in the world slowly die as github starts censoring increasingly larger portions of the english language?
    - PopeOfNope 11y ago
      The worst that would happen is what's happening in GamerGate right now: a split along ideological lines. Those who want to judge the merit of a work based on its code and those who want to judge the merit of a work based on the political opinions of the author.
      - Snesker 11y ago
        From what I understood the split is strict ethics v. politics. Gamergate never had anything to do with technical meritocracy, that's just the way users see the games. I can't help but think you're trying to perpetuate some false meme.
      - tomjen3 11y ago
        I don't see that split happening right now and I often browse /r/kotakuinaction, which is one of the central gamergater hubs. Also user Snesker, you have been hell-banned.
ve55 11y ago
Of course I think Github should have the right to do this, but I don't think they should do this in cases as silly as this one. The free market doesn't always work here. Especially when it comes to the Internet. In this instance, sure they can host it anywhere they want and then not encounter problems, but that often doesn't work in other scenarios. When some sites try to fork in that manner, due to censorship on the original, the forked site can end up with DDoS attacks, having their domains revoked, payment accounts frozen, hosting revoked, and so on, because groups will harass companies support, demanding that they stop supporting <offending site> for whatever reason, and almost all companies cave when this happens. Suddenly, forking isn't so easy. I strongly suggest anyone who thinks this is a good thing to read this post (which this comment is similar to): http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali...
forgotpasswd3x 11y ago
> Who decides what is and is not appropriate? Or when. This is certainly not the only repository using that word. Nobody else is getting takedown notices.
- Zikes 11y ago
  A bit early to say that. There may be others that haven't come forward yet, or that they just haven't got to yet (assuming it's not an automated process).
mc32 11y ago
One of the main things to keep in mind is that GH is a business. Businesses avoid negative controversies. That said, politically correctness has the basic potential to just push these human tendencies internally. It's saying some people are too primitive and thus these things have to be made into taboos rather than let it be part of human communication flotsam.
hhandoko 11y ago
It sounds like entitlement to me. Just because it's an open source project, does not grant the author free pass to do whatever he/she likes. If I come and visit someone at their house, I make sure I observe their house rules. So GitHub makes it clear that this is unacceptable. Whilst their actions / decisions may sometimes look arbitrary, we need to remember that GitHub is not just one person. In addition, in a public space you would expect respectful public decorum. This repository is publicly visible and anyone could stumble upon it.
- _jgdh 11y ago
  I know of one country that operates a web content filter to prevent its citizens from being exposed to offensive and objectionable content. The citizens of this country find it incredibly offensive that there exists instructions on how to circumvent this filter. However, github proudly hosts these instructions[1] in spite of repeated polite requests to remove it. Now I'd like to know why the views of Bay Area SJWs is worth listening to, but not Chinese people. If we can censor words like this, why can't we censor content that actually harms (/s) a lot of Chinese people? [1] - https://github.com/greatfire/ https://github.com/greatfire/
  - hhandoko 11y ago
    So what you're saying is that you're afraid that GitHub will go down the slippery slope of censorship? If I reframe this another way, do you think this is an acceptable behaviour in a professional setting? Then the issue becomes less of censorship, but more of acceptable conduct. Calling names for laughs is probably OK in private, between friends, but perhaps not appropriate in a public setting. Again, I get that the author is just having a bit of fun. But not everyone will understand that.
    - _jgdh 11y ago
      I do not think it is acceptable behaviour in a professional setting. I would be less likely to hire someone who's Github had such references. That does not mean that censoring them is acceptable. Github's previous policy was to allow any content that did not expressly break American laws. I thought this was a good idea, and it was the justification behind keeping the GreatFire repo up, even in the face of DoS attacks by China. Very commendable, IMO. However, when they start censoring people who break no laws, I do think they are more likely to censor things in the future. Lastly, I'd like to point out that "git" is an offensive word to some people. It was chosen by Linus Torvalds for that reason. Now that Github has demonstrated their willingness to censor words that hurt people's feelings, would they consider censoring this awful project? [1] While they're at it, could they change their name too? [1] - https://github.com/git/git https://github.com/git/git
jakejake 11y ago
Censorship of your freedom of speech really only applies when the government is doing it. Github is not the government and, by contract law, you waived your right to freedom of speech when you agreed to their terms of service. If that truly does concern you then you're free to move your code to a new repo, or host it yourself. Unless Github decides that "anything goes" on their servers then it's going to be a judgement call sometimes. Using the word 'retard' in this context might be seen as harassment, unlike using profanity. I personally think Github made the right call here.
- Retra 11y ago
  Freedom of speech is broader subject than the rights granted by the first amendment.
pron 11y ago
I'm not saying that this particular case is reasonable, but: > Who decides what is and is not appropriate? Common sense. For millennia, human society has regulated itself by employing common sense, civility and good judgement. It's not that hard, really, even without a foolproof mathematical algorithm. Sometimes mistakes are made, but that's just how we people roll. If you accidentally go beyond the confines of civility, someone will point that out to you, you say "sorry", fix your mistake and move on. It's no big deal. Your freedom of expression is not hurt, just your freedom to behave rudely in public with no good reason. AFAIK, this has always been regulated pretty much in every civilized society since the dawn of mankind.
- codygman 11y ago
  Agreed on all counts, I really don't get why you're being downvoted. Not that we care about internet karma, more that I wonder why others disagree with the points you've made.
DanBC 11y ago
Your argument is incoherant. You complain about censorship, but then you complain that Github doesn't censor everything. You ask for free speech, but you seek to deny Github the freedom to chose what they want to publish. The sense of entitlement in this thread is baffling. "I want the freedom to use your property whoever I like, and how dare you try to stop me". You're also not allowed to use github to insult your employer if you worked in UAE - that's censorship worth fighting over.
- jstuxx 11y ago
  "The sense of entitlement in this thread is baffling." It is baffling indeed. I am also baffled by open source fanatics who want to force everyone to release the source code to their work for the reason "I want to see how you built what you worked so hard on so I can fork and then take the credit for it.". Of course FOSS fanatics will tell you that you shouldn't care who takes the credit for you work, that the reward is in contributing to the community however when it comes to Microsoft "I DONT WANT THEM TO TAKE THE CREDIT FOR MY WORK" and hence we have the GPL which is no different from any Microsoft EULA agreement. Sense of entitlement, hypocrisy and incoherent arguments are commonplace in the open source community.
weland 11y ago
> Who decides what is and is not appropriate? GitHub, because that stuff is hosted on their servers. This is not about Open Source. This is about GitHub. Yes, it has no place in Open Source. Whether or not it has a place on GitHub is, however, up to GitHub itself.
- valdiorn 11y ago
  Your logic becomes flawed when you realize how many % of the world's open source projects are hosted primarily on Github. Their actions are all legal and good, and since I don't live in America, the freedom of speech argument is invalid to me. That doesn't make this sort or action OK, and should in fact be cause for alarm. To quote my favorite comedian, Steve Hughes: "What offends me may not offend you. And you want to make laws about this? How do you make a law about offending people? How do you make it an offense to offend people? Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual or a collective, or a group or a society or a community. Your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs. What offends me may not offend you. And you want to make laws about this? I’m offended when I see boy bands for god sake!"
  - weland 11y ago
    Don't get me wrong, I think GitHub's move is retarded. It's just that no one has a right to whine about it any more than they have a right to whine about what their retarded neighbour does in their apartment. If your retarded neighbour has a "no cursing" policies in their home, you can either not be his guest, or not swear while in his house. Either way, it's his right.
- j-pb 11y ago
  Github has become a too important center for open source work, to silently accept their policy.
  - weland 11y ago
    There are two possibilities: * Either this is not OK for Open Source, and it will prompt people to move away from GitHub -- because, sure, we needed the INT_MAXth reminder that relying on a private third-party for a free service is a bad idea, or * This is something most open source projects have no problem with, and they'll just keep going, while leaving open source "radicals" like you and me to whine about it. Github didn't just magically become this super important center for open source work. It's an important center for the open source world because a lot of people are using it. It can stop being an important center, that's not a problem.
learnstats2 11y ago
There is plenty of more harmful censorship on this very HN thread. People with controversial or different opinions are downvoted until they don't appear on the site any more, ultimately meaning that only a small range of human opinions are welcome and valid here. Github asked for the use of a single word to be reconsidered - nothing has been censored in any meaningful way, and the result is that a different word has been used, which means the same in this context. Who decides what is and is not appropriate? Github does. Github chooses exactly the terms that you need to meet to host there, and decides when those terms change. That's agreed contractually and implicitly when you sign up to use Github. It's important to understand that this applies to every online service you might use.
darklajid 11y ago
There is no free speech. 1) That concept in itself is just as broken as the idea of offensive content: It's a personal or maybe regional thing. Examples: Germany vs. the USA Why should one concept win over the other? 2) This is a corporation, offering a service. Free Speech is usually something that is discussed when we talk about the public or the government. You cannot enter a restaurant, shout offensive stuff and complain when shown the door. 3) GH is not the internet, GH is not open source. It's a company. So far they seem to be nice, but I'd have said the same thing about Google a couple years back. Don't tie GH to concepts you value (open source, free/libre software). (I personally think that this incident is ridiculous and poor form by GH - but other than that I couldn't disagree more with the direction of your post)
d_theorist 11y ago
GitHub has a right to decide what it allows on its platform. We have a right to move our code somewhere else if we don't like what they're doing. End of controversy.
crimsonalucard 11y ago
We view this type of censorship as offensive because the word "retard" doesn't carry much weight. Nobody would be fighting for this man's freedom of speech if he littered the code with the word "nigger" or "lynching" One of the executives probably has a son or daughter who is a retard. Makes sense why such censorship can occur. When you own a product, your bias will inevitably saturate into the product. Having a son or daughter who's a retard makes this bias especially strong. Personally I agree that "retard" shouldn't be censored because I hate censoring in general. But I also agree that "nigger" shouldn't be touched either. Defending freedom of speech means defending the right for other people to have dissenting opinions, this includes opinions that are stupid, racist and bigoted.
- Cthulhu_ 11y ago
  I have a son (or daughter) who is a git - I am offended by *hub and demand they change their name to 'basebornhub' or 'intellectuallychallengedhub'
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    I bet you don't have a son or daughter who is a git or a retard. You definitely wouldn't be writing this otherwise.
    - jazzyk 11y ago
      You did not get his point: what is offensive to one person may or may not be offensive to other people. Where do we draw the line?
      - crimsonalucard 11y ago
        We don't draw the a line. Freedom of speech. All I'm trying to promote is understanding among people from both sides.
- codygman 11y ago
  > Personally I agree that "retard" shouldn't be censored because I hate censoring in general. But I also agree that "nigr" shouldn't be touched either. The people who use the N-word should be called racists and shamed for using it though. > Defending freedom of speech means defending the right for other people to have dissenting opinions, this includes opinions that are stupid, racist and bigoted. Yep. Like I said though, those people should openly be called racists and be forced to know how their racism affects others.
fluidcruft 11y ago
It's threads like these that remind me that reddit's ability to collapse entire threads is priceless.
- hga 11y ago
  It you're using Chrome or Chromium, this extension provides that plus after a refresh orange bars indicating new postings: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hckr-news/mnlaodleonmmfkdhfofamacceeikgecp https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hckr-news/mnlaodle...
bitwize 11y ago
If you say or do socially offensive things, don't be surprised if there are social repercussions for it. GitHub is not the government. They are free to ban whomever they want for saying anything GitHub objects to. And yes, "retarded" is more offensive than random swearwords because it is a slur against a class of people.
mangeletti 11y ago
The slippery slope argument is the only way to go when it comes to censorship, and it is not a fallacy. I can't even believe this is happening. I will end my years long relationship with GitHub over this, if this is not publicly addressed. I can see at least one user in that comment stream that should also be censored (account deleted), if we're going down this disgusting road of censorship (https://github.com/MarbleFag https://github.com/MarbleFag). FTR, I wouldn't add him/her as a friend, but let me make that choice for myself. Don't censor my community, or I'll find a new one.
sabarn01 11y ago
That is yet another argument for why one company should not become a virtual library of Alexandria for oss.
lhorie 11y ago
Imho, this strikes me more as a similar situation as a primary school kid getting suspended for swearing at school. Sure, freedom of speech technically allows him to say whatever he wants, but at the same time the school is responsible for preventing classes from turning into a profanity-fest. What's the big deal if Github did delete the repo data from their servers? Isn't the whole point of Git that you can just go and setup an upstream somewhere else with a one-liner? They are merely a free hosting provider among many. This is not a dispute against the government, so the discussion about censorship and the rights and responsibilities entailed by free speech isn't relevant at all. Remember that the free speech provision is primarily intended to be about citizens' ability to self-organize to defend their constitutional rights if their representatives don't have citizens' interests at heart; it's not meant to be used as an excuse for immature behavior.

by CoryG89 11y ago

toehead2000 11y ago

A bunch of retards apparently.

numbsafari 11y ago

Github does. If you don't like it, fork it... just not on GitHub.

smrtinsert 11y ago

They can do whatever they want, that is the market at work. If enough people find it offensive, they will produce/migrate to an alternative.

gruez 11y ago
sure, they're legally entitled to do whatever they want, but you're failing to consider the most important point: >You need to consider that GitHub currently hosts a large percentage of the web's open source repositories would you be happy if google abused its position as the leading search engine to favor right leaning websites over left leaning websites? what about censoring websites that are "offensive" to muslims?
- chipsy 11y ago
  Or what about if your comment were mass-downvoted on HN? Would you be happy? The censorship card ultimately falls into a relativistic trap - it's always okay to broadcast hate if it's the speech of you or your friends, because you and I can protest ignorance, humor, or lack of wrongdoing, and your more overtly bigoted friends "are good guys when you get to know them." Criticism of such speech, on the other hand, is never okay, and is "the real censorship". You don't even have to invoke a specific ideological dialogue - it is an everyday occurrence in your homes, schools, and bars. Now, you can go out there and fight and "win" by making your preferred flavor of speech dominant in your spaces, but that just exposes a different facet of this "gem of truthiness" - it doesn't reveal the whole thing, because you still get the same problem, no matter which side you take. The typical modern response to this is nihilistic or fanatical, but if you really feel challenged by a hostile environment, why not follow the path of the ancients and turn your speech into a puzzle or parable that hides its true intention? If your ideas are good, they will survive the transition and reach the readers who put in the effort to care and figure it out. OTOH if the whole premise is to police the surface aspects of the dialogue and Be Right, then you're speaking politically, not intellectually, and political speech comes with Consequences regardless of the legal environment.
  - makomk 11y ago
    Funny, the same thing seems to happen with the "it's not censorship" card. For example, a while ago a social justice activist got banned from Twitter for death threats against Wil Wheaton, and suddenly all the tech industry folks who claimed sites should ban people for harassment were going after Twitter for doing it because it was an approved social justice death threat.

Retra 11y ago

You don't think standards of professionalism have a place in open source, or on GitHub?

PopeOfNope 11y ago
"standards of professionalism" are used as a device of exclusion. It has a fairly narrow definition now, but that will change, just like the words "racist", "sexist" and "homophobic". You used to have to perform an action of actual malice to be accused of those things. Now, all you have to do is make an honest mistake and the entire internet's on you like jackals.
- Retra 11y ago
  When are you referring to? Of course nobody jumped on you like jackals before you had a global platform to offend people. You used to have to look someone in the face to offend them. Then we invented writing and the world changed. >"standards of professionalism" are used as a device of exclusion Indeed. You exclude the behavior that doesn't mesh well with your goals. Every law, standard, and community that has ever existed has been used as a device of exclusion. Hacker News is a device of exclusion. That's not a bad thing.
  - PopeOfNope 11y ago
    When are you referring to? Do you use twitter at all? And nobody here jumps on me like jackals because they use downvotes to do that for them. Hacker News is a device of exclusion. That's not a bad thing. You can't claim to be for free and open source software for all humanity, except for those people. Those people aren't ideologically pure, they can't participate. That mindset is why GNU is a footnote in programming history, but everybody knows what linux is. Code quality, not political ideology.
    - Retra 11y ago
      No, I don't use Twitter. Any communication medium that severely limits the amount of text you can send is going to be prone to miscommunication, aggression, and triteness. Anyway, nobody is forcing you to not write free and open source software. GitHub doesn't have a problem with the software. Nor are they preventing anyone from getting it or using it. They've erected what I would call a rather trivial obstacle for the developers: use a different term. I mean, if that's too hard to accept -- if that is what has causes the downfall of GNU -- then we are doomed to fail from the start. >Code quality, not political ideology. The world is not black and white. You can have good code quality while making politically favorable decisions.

ectoplasm 11y ago

> It is the selective censorship of certain reasonable uses of free speech that is concerning here. Free speech laws don't apply to corporate or private censorship. > Who decides what is and is not appropriate? The owners of the property. Can I come over to your place and say offensive things?

JungleGymSam 11y ago
That's willful ignorance of the real issue. This is not an isolated incident. Society is increasingly rejecting any and all "offensive" language and behavior. Should we all be nice and respectful to each other? Yes, of course. Are people that way? No. Can we police ourselves fairly and achieve a society that is not offensive? Absolutely not.
- ectoplasm 11y ago
  > Can we police ourselves fairly and achieve a society that is not offensive? Absolutely not. Hacker News is a pretty nice place.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    This thread, and almost any thread about social issues in technology, demonstrates that it has both nice and awful people hanging out on it.
    - ectoplasm 11y ago
      Perhaps, but what makes it a nice place is the limits on how awful people can be.
  - lordfoom 11y ago
    And yet one is allowed to use the word retard.
aerovistae 11y ago
Depends, is his place a known haven for sharing information, specifically designed to encourage and promote openness?

mbillie1 11y ago

A private company choosing not to allow content for whatever reason is not censorship. People who choose to use the word "retard" are not a protected class, Github can ban this word as they see fit.

toehead2000 11y ago
Yeah there was this bakery I think that didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding. That's ok too right? Or should we burn down their business?
- mbillie1 11y ago
  Their refusal did not constitute censorship, if that's what you're asking.
  - marrs 11y ago
    The argument is that Github's censorship is acceptable because those are the terms under which they choose to operate their business and if you don't like it you can go somewhere else (which seems reasonable enough to me). I think toehead2000 was asking how that squares with a bakery not being allowed to operate their business under certain other terms.
forrestthewoods 11y ago
False. When Trey Parker and Matt Stone wished to show Muhammad in South Park Comedy Central overruled them and placed a big black censored box over Muhammad in the cartoon. If you want to say that a black box with the word censored doesn't qualify as censorship then you're retarded. You are ever correct that GitHub can ban the word if they want. They're fully within their legal right to do so.
- thedz 11y ago
  I think where the confusion comes from is that along with many cries of "censorship", there is often a subtext of "this is illegal" or "this is not allowed".

Lazare 11y ago

Github is not a public service; they're a private company. > Who decides what is and is not appropriate? Github does. That's how that works. If you prefer you could try and lobby your government to set up some sort of national source code repo. Maybe you'd find the rules on such a thing more to your liking. (Note: You really, really wouldn't.) Alternatively, you could host your own source code repos, and then you can set the rules. Edit: More generally, you seem to suggest that a place where a lot of people from different backgrounds come together to try and collaborate and work should be a place with no rules, norms, or even an expectation of basic politeness. Offhand, I'd think the opposite should be true. You're also conflating something like, eg, efforts to get around the Chinese firewall with people who want to use slurs. People have, in my view, in intrinsic right to do both, but these are still not equivalent actions, and you're not going to reach a sensible conclusion until you abandon that moral relativism. Free speech is valuable, but not all speech is equally valuable.

PopeOfNope 11y ago
Github is not a public service; they're a private company. They're both. They're a private company that offers a public service. As such, they can't do whatever they want. For example, if they wanted to ban all repos written by black men, that would be illegal. Nobody is suggesting that banning a repo for using a bad word is illegal. A breach of trust, a breach of ethics and a breach of reliability[0], but not illegal. [0]: if I were a company, I would be thinking twice about trusting any of my business to Github. If a British employee commits a word that is commonplace in Britain but very offensive in America (like 'fag'), does that mean my repo goes away? Could I mess with another company by purposefully taking one of their commits out of context and creating an internet controversy over it on twitter?
- iwwr 11y ago
  "They're both. They're a private company that offers a public service. As such, they can't do whatever they want." Strictly from being a company that pursues profits, they can't do "whatever they want" because they want to maintain their userbase. But, being a private company means they have a "right to do whatever they please" (property rights). But having a right to do something doesn't mean people can't criticize those decisions or be right in those assessments.

thedz 11y ago

1. This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. It is a private company deciding a word was inappropriate. 2. It seems like most in this comment thread agree that this action, as a singular act, is a good thing. The word was offensive. Github asked the repo to change it. They did. The end. 3. As for the larger context, the problem with the frequent use of slippery slope arguments and cries of "censorship" is that people are choosing to die on some pretty ridiculous hills. 4. If or when Github actually does something truly abusive of their power to censor, then I'll worry.

PopeOfNope 11y ago
By the time #4 on your list happens, what makes you think anybody will be listening?
- andylei 11y ago
  what kind of doomsday scenario are you imagining? all the open source repos in the world slowly die as github starts censoring increasingly larger portions of the english language?
  - PopeOfNope 11y ago
    The worst that would happen is what's happening in GamerGate right now: a split along ideological lines. Those who want to judge the merit of a work based on its code and those who want to judge the merit of a work based on the political opinions of the author.
    - Snesker 11y ago
      From what I understood the split is strict ethics v. politics. Gamergate never had anything to do with technical meritocracy, that's just the way users see the games. I can't help but think you're trying to perpetuate some false meme.
    - tomjen3 11y ago
      I don't see that split happening right now and I often browse /r/kotakuinaction, which is one of the central gamergater hubs. Also user Snesker, you have been hell-banned.

ve55 11y ago

Of course I think Github should have the right to do this, but I don't think they should do this in cases as silly as this one. The free market doesn't always work here. Especially when it comes to the Internet. In this instance, sure they can host it anywhere they want and then not encounter problems, but that often doesn't work in other scenarios. When some sites try to fork in that manner, due to censorship on the original, the forked site can end up with DDoS attacks, having their domains revoked, payment accounts frozen, hosting revoked, and so on, because groups will harass companies support, demanding that they stop supporting <offending site> for whatever reason, and almost all companies cave when this happens. Suddenly, forking isn't so easy. I strongly suggest anyone who thinks this is a good thing to read this post (which this comment is similar to): http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali...

forgotpasswd3x 11y ago

> Who decides what is and is not appropriate? Or when. This is certainly not the only repository using that word. Nobody else is getting takedown notices.

Zikes 11y ago
A bit early to say that. There may be others that haven't come forward yet, or that they just haven't got to yet (assuming it's not an automated process).

mc32 11y ago

One of the main things to keep in mind is that GH is a business. Businesses avoid negative controversies. That said, politically correctness has the basic potential to just push these human tendencies internally. It's saying some people are too primitive and thus these things have to be made into taboos rather than let it be part of human communication flotsam.

hhandoko 11y ago

It sounds like entitlement to me. Just because it's an open source project, does not grant the author free pass to do whatever he/she likes. If I come and visit someone at their house, I make sure I observe their house rules. So GitHub makes it clear that this is unacceptable. Whilst their actions / decisions may sometimes look arbitrary, we need to remember that GitHub is not just one person. In addition, in a public space you would expect respectful public decorum. This repository is publicly visible and anyone could stumble upon it.

_jgdh 11y ago
I know of one country that operates a web content filter to prevent its citizens from being exposed to offensive and objectionable content. The citizens of this country find it incredibly offensive that there exists instructions on how to circumvent this filter. However, github proudly hosts these instructions[1] in spite of repeated polite requests to remove it. Now I'd like to know why the views of Bay Area SJWs is worth listening to, but not Chinese people. If we can censor words like this, why can't we censor content that actually harms (/s) a lot of Chinese people? [1] - https://github.com/greatfire/ https://github.com/greatfire/
- hhandoko 11y ago
  So what you're saying is that you're afraid that GitHub will go down the slippery slope of censorship? If I reframe this another way, do you think this is an acceptable behaviour in a professional setting? Then the issue becomes less of censorship, but more of acceptable conduct. Calling names for laughs is probably OK in private, between friends, but perhaps not appropriate in a public setting. Again, I get that the author is just having a bit of fun. But not everyone will understand that.
  - _jgdh 11y ago
    I do not think it is acceptable behaviour in a professional setting. I would be less likely to hire someone who's Github had such references. That does not mean that censoring them is acceptable. Github's previous policy was to allow any content that did not expressly break American laws. I thought this was a good idea, and it was the justification behind keeping the GreatFire repo up, even in the face of DoS attacks by China. Very commendable, IMO. However, when they start censoring people who break no laws, I do think they are more likely to censor things in the future. Lastly, I'd like to point out that "git" is an offensive word to some people. It was chosen by Linus Torvalds for that reason. Now that Github has demonstrated their willingness to censor words that hurt people's feelings, would they consider censoring this awful project? [1] While they're at it, could they change their name too? [1] - https://github.com/git/git https://github.com/git/git

jakejake 11y ago

Censorship of your freedom of speech really only applies when the government is doing it. Github is not the government and, by contract law, you waived your right to freedom of speech when you agreed to their terms of service. If that truly does concern you then you're free to move your code to a new repo, or host it yourself. Unless Github decides that "anything goes" on their servers then it's going to be a judgement call sometimes. Using the word 'retard' in this context might be seen as harassment, unlike using profanity. I personally think Github made the right call here.

Retra 11y ago
Freedom of speech is broader subject than the rights granted by the first amendment.

pron 11y ago

I'm not saying that this particular case is reasonable, but: > Who decides what is and is not appropriate? Common sense. For millennia, human society has regulated itself by employing common sense, civility and good judgement. It's not that hard, really, even without a foolproof mathematical algorithm. Sometimes mistakes are made, but that's just how we people roll. If you accidentally go beyond the confines of civility, someone will point that out to you, you say "sorry", fix your mistake and move on. It's no big deal. Your freedom of expression is not hurt, just your freedom to behave rudely in public with no good reason. AFAIK, this has always been regulated pretty much in every civilized society since the dawn of mankind.

codygman 11y ago
Agreed on all counts, I really don't get why you're being downvoted. Not that we care about internet karma, more that I wonder why others disagree with the points you've made.

DanBC 11y ago

Your argument is incoherant. You complain about censorship, but then you complain that Github doesn't censor everything. You ask for free speech, but you seek to deny Github the freedom to chose what they want to publish. The sense of entitlement in this thread is baffling. "I want the freedom to use your property whoever I like, and how dare you try to stop me". You're also not allowed to use github to insult your employer if you worked in UAE - that's censorship worth fighting over.

jstuxx 11y ago
"The sense of entitlement in this thread is baffling." It is baffling indeed. I am also baffled by open source fanatics who want to force everyone to release the source code to their work for the reason "I want to see how you built what you worked so hard on so I can fork and then take the credit for it.". Of course FOSS fanatics will tell you that you shouldn't care who takes the credit for you work, that the reward is in contributing to the community however when it comes to Microsoft "I DONT WANT THEM TO TAKE THE CREDIT FOR MY WORK" and hence we have the GPL which is no different from any Microsoft EULA agreement. Sense of entitlement, hypocrisy and incoherent arguments are commonplace in the open source community.

weland 11y ago

> Who decides what is and is not appropriate? GitHub, because that stuff is hosted on their servers. This is not about Open Source. This is about GitHub. Yes, it has no place in Open Source. Whether or not it has a place on GitHub is, however, up to GitHub itself.

valdiorn 11y ago
Your logic becomes flawed when you realize how many % of the world's open source projects are hosted primarily on Github. Their actions are all legal and good, and since I don't live in America, the freedom of speech argument is invalid to me. That doesn't make this sort or action OK, and should in fact be cause for alarm. To quote my favorite comedian, Steve Hughes: "What offends me may not offend you. And you want to make laws about this? How do you make a law about offending people? How do you make it an offense to offend people? Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual or a collective, or a group or a society or a community. Your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs. What offends me may not offend you. And you want to make laws about this? I’m offended when I see boy bands for god sake!"
- weland 11y ago
  Don't get me wrong, I think GitHub's move is retarded. It's just that no one has a right to whine about it any more than they have a right to whine about what their retarded neighbour does in their apartment. If your retarded neighbour has a "no cursing" policies in their home, you can either not be his guest, or not swear while in his house. Either way, it's his right.
j-pb 11y ago
Github has become a too important center for open source work, to silently accept their policy.
- weland 11y ago
  There are two possibilities: * Either this is not OK for Open Source, and it will prompt people to move away from GitHub -- because, sure, we needed the INT_MAXth reminder that relying on a private third-party for a free service is a bad idea, or * This is something most open source projects have no problem with, and they'll just keep going, while leaving open source "radicals" like you and me to whine about it. Github didn't just magically become this super important center for open source work. It's an important center for the open source world because a lot of people are using it. It can stop being an important center, that's not a problem.

learnstats2 11y ago

There is plenty of more harmful censorship on this very HN thread. People with controversial or different opinions are downvoted until they don't appear on the site any more, ultimately meaning that only a small range of human opinions are welcome and valid here. Github asked for the use of a single word to be reconsidered - nothing has been censored in any meaningful way, and the result is that a different word has been used, which means the same in this context. Who decides what is and is not appropriate? Github does. Github chooses exactly the terms that you need to meet to host there, and decides when those terms change. That's agreed contractually and implicitly when you sign up to use Github. It's important to understand that this applies to every online service you might use.

darklajid 11y ago

There is no free speech. 1) That concept in itself is just as broken as the idea of offensive content: It's a personal or maybe regional thing. Examples: Germany vs. the USA Why should one concept win over the other? 2) This is a corporation, offering a service. Free Speech is usually something that is discussed when we talk about the public or the government. You cannot enter a restaurant, shout offensive stuff and complain when shown the door. 3) GH is not the internet, GH is not open source. It's a company. So far they seem to be nice, but I'd have said the same thing about Google a couple years back. Don't tie GH to concepts you value (open source, free/libre software). (I personally think that this incident is ridiculous and poor form by GH - but other than that I couldn't disagree more with the direction of your post)

d_theorist 11y ago

GitHub has a right to decide what it allows on its platform. We have a right to move our code somewhere else if we don't like what they're doing. End of controversy.

crimsonalucard 11y ago

We view this type of censorship as offensive because the word "retard" doesn't carry much weight. Nobody would be fighting for this man's freedom of speech if he littered the code with the word "nigger" or "lynching" One of the executives probably has a son or daughter who is a retard. Makes sense why such censorship can occur. When you own a product, your bias will inevitably saturate into the product. Having a son or daughter who's a retard makes this bias especially strong. Personally I agree that "retard" shouldn't be censored because I hate censoring in general. But I also agree that "nigger" shouldn't be touched either. Defending freedom of speech means defending the right for other people to have dissenting opinions, this includes opinions that are stupid, racist and bigoted.

Cthulhu_ 11y ago
I have a son (or daughter) who is a git - I am offended by *hub and demand they change their name to 'basebornhub' or 'intellectuallychallengedhub'
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  I bet you don't have a son or daughter who is a git or a retard. You definitely wouldn't be writing this otherwise.
  - jazzyk 11y ago
    You did not get his point: what is offensive to one person may or may not be offensive to other people. Where do we draw the line?
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      We don't draw the a line. Freedom of speech. All I'm trying to promote is understanding among people from both sides.
codygman 11y ago
> Personally I agree that "retard" shouldn't be censored because I hate censoring in general. But I also agree that "nigr" shouldn't be touched either. The people who use the N-word should be called racists and shamed for using it though. > Defending freedom of speech means defending the right for other people to have dissenting opinions, this includes opinions that are stupid, racist and bigoted. Yep. Like I said though, those people should openly be called racists and be forced to know how their racism affects others.

fluidcruft 11y ago

It's threads like these that remind me that reddit's ability to collapse entire threads is priceless.

hga 11y ago
It you're using Chrome or Chromium, this extension provides that plus after a refresh orange bars indicating new postings: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hckr-news/mnlaodleonmmfkdhfofamacceeikgecp https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hckr-news/mnlaodle...

bitwize 11y ago

If you say or do socially offensive things, don't be surprised if there are social repercussions for it. GitHub is not the government. They are free to ban whomever they want for saying anything GitHub objects to. And yes, "retarded" is more offensive than random swearwords because it is a slur against a class of people.

mangeletti 11y ago

The slippery slope argument is the only way to go when it comes to censorship, and it is not a fallacy. I can't even believe this is happening. I will end my years long relationship with GitHub over this, if this is not publicly addressed. I can see at least one user in that comment stream that should also be censored (account deleted), if we're going down this disgusting road of censorship (https://github.com/MarbleFag https://github.com/MarbleFag). FTR, I wouldn't add him/her as a friend, but let me make that choice for myself. Don't censor my community, or I'll find a new one.

sabarn01 11y ago

That is yet another argument for why one company should not become a virtual library of Alexandria for oss.

lhorie 11y ago

Imho, this strikes me more as a similar situation as a primary school kid getting suspended for swearing at school. Sure, freedom of speech technically allows him to say whatever he wants, but at the same time the school is responsible for preventing classes from turning into a profanity-fest. What's the big deal if Github did delete the repo data from their servers? Isn't the whole point of Git that you can just go and setup an upstream somewhere else with a one-liner? They are merely a free hosting provider among many. This is not a dispute against the government, so the discussion about censorship and the rights and responsibilities entailed by free speech isn't relevant at all. Remember that the free speech provision is primarily intended to be about citizens' ability to self-organize to defend their constitutional rights if their representatives don't have citizens' interests at heart; it's not meant to be used as an excuse for immature behavior.