5 ms·

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, Git

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".
  - Snesker 11y ago
    I've seen that used as a straw-man in this thread over 10 times so far and not a single person who thought what github did was illegal. I'm forced wonder if insane overreactions of the people who think free speech only means the American law are part of some social conditioning project to destroy non-progressive principles. I shouldn't have to. For all the back-patting the users on HN gives themselves they sure are dumb as bricks. Also, with the notion that the subtext of it being illegal being present - I've never seen it once. In the 23 years I've been alive I've never once seen someone say corporate censorship was illegal. Heh. I'm angrier than this text reads, breh.
- eastbayjake 11y ago
  > If you want to say that a black box with the word censored doesn't qualify as censorship then you're regarded. This is a definition of censorship that removes any useful descriptive meaning from the word. It's not censorship when I refuse to listen to offensive things or refuse to repeat them to others or allow you to graffiti it on the side of my house. Similarly, it's not censorship when a private company declines to let you use its private resources to say whatever you want. The difference between these types of "censorship" and scary, actual government censorship is that GitHub doesn't have the authority to hold a gun to your head and compel you to be quiet. You can take your repo and host it privately and say whatever you want. Comedy Central didn't have the authority to compel Trey Parker and Matt Stone to be quiet. Parker and Stone could have terminated their contracts and posted a Mohammed cartoon through some other channel. You rob censorship of its depth of meaning -- compulsory silencing by force -- when you apply it to private actors choosing not to use their private resources to promote others' speech.
  - forrestthewoods 11y ago
    I could not possibly disagree with you any more strongly. I'm far from alone in my opinion. I may even be on the majority side. That doesn't make me right of course. But it is worth your consideration. I could defend my stance. I think you're probably smart and probably know almost everything I'd say. If that's the case then we're resigned to agree to disagree.
scruple 11y ago
> ban this word as they see fit. Then they're going to have a busy night. https://github.com/search?q=retard&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93 https://github.com/search?q=retard&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93
eastbayjake 11y ago
Exactly -- it's not censorship when you give someone something for free but ask them to abide by your rules. If you want the freedom to say whatever you want, pay someone to host your repo or host it yourself.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
Zikes 11y ago
Well, in the literal sense it is censorship, being the suppression of materials deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. A bit like a (likely American) TV censor might "bleep" a word they don't want to expose people's delicate sensibilities to. I mean, that doesn't make it "evil", but a lot of people might say that censorship of any sort is a bit of a grey area. That whole "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" thing.
- brandonmenc 11y ago
  > "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" When it comes down to it, no one would really do this.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    You don't think that people would defend to the death one of the basic principles of human rights? To be clear, I'm not saying that Github censoring "retarded" is a human rights issue, but as long as we've gone off the rails let's see where the train comes to a stop.
    - brandonmenc 11y ago
      > You don't think that people would defend to the death one of the basic principles of human rights? A progressive making that claim would never take a bullet so that someone could fly the Confederate flag, for example. It's just not going to happen. They may fight to defend the 1st Amendment, but that's easy because it's a proxy behind which exists all the specific instances of speech they would find horrible along with the speech they hold dear. People making the claim probably mean the latter, but the wording implies something more specific, presumably for effect.
      - Zikes 11y ago
        Ah, it looks like the train didn't make it very far, did it.
PopeOfNope 11y ago
Github can ban this word as they see fit. And people can discuss whether that is or is not appropriate as they see fit. If enough people feel differently, that's when alternative services start to appear.
- forgotpasswd3x 11y ago
  This always seems to happen in situations like this. People jump to defend the actions of the company with statements like "It's their website, they can do what they want". Which is true, except nobody is arguing that fact.
waterlesscloud 11y ago
No, it is censorship. The idea that private companies can't engage in censorship is incorrect, and in conflict with the definition of the word. Doesn't make it bad, necessarily, but it is censorship.
- mehwoot 11y ago
  Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information The argument is it isn't suppression because as a private company, people can still choose to engage in that speech elsewhere. The government can actually make laws to stop people from saying certain things in any context. When a private company does it, they can only do it in the medium they control and for people who choose to use that medium.
  - waterlesscloud 11y ago
    From the same wiki article you're quoting from - "Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship" It's simply incorrect to say that private companies cannot engage in censorship.
    - zobzu 11y ago
      This is the internet, where retarded people redefine the words and their world view as they see fit. Most comments and up/down votes are about what people like/dislike not about what's either right, interesting or insightful.
      - waterlesscloud 11y ago
        I take every downvote on a comment of undeniable factual information as a clear indication of the downward slide of HN. It is what it is, and the mods couldn't care less.
    - mehwoot 11y ago
      It's simply incorrect to say that private companies cannot engage in censorship. If they have enough control over a medium to effectively suppress speech, then yes. The argument is whether that is the case here. The definition of censorship is not merely "any case where someone prevents someone from saying something". The bar is higher than that.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Snesker 11y ago
Read the last part carefully so as to fully understand why your first statement is incorrect. >Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship :^)

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".
- Snesker 11y ago
  I've seen that used as a straw-man in this thread over 10 times so far and not a single person who thought what github did was illegal. I'm forced wonder if insane overreactions of the people who think free speech only means the American law are part of some social conditioning project to destroy non-progressive principles. I shouldn't have to. For all the back-patting the users on HN gives themselves they sure are dumb as bricks. Also, with the notion that the subtext of it being illegal being present - I've never seen it once. In the 23 years I've been alive I've never once seen someone say corporate censorship was illegal. Heh. I'm angrier than this text reads, breh.
eastbayjake 11y ago
> If you want to say that a black box with the word censored doesn't qualify as censorship then you're regarded. This is a definition of censorship that removes any useful descriptive meaning from the word. It's not censorship when I refuse to listen to offensive things or refuse to repeat them to others or allow you to graffiti it on the side of my house. Similarly, it's not censorship when a private company declines to let you use its private resources to say whatever you want. The difference between these types of "censorship" and scary, actual government censorship is that GitHub doesn't have the authority to hold a gun to your head and compel you to be quiet. You can take your repo and host it privately and say whatever you want. Comedy Central didn't have the authority to compel Trey Parker and Matt Stone to be quiet. Parker and Stone could have terminated their contracts and posted a Mohammed cartoon through some other channel. You rob censorship of its depth of meaning -- compulsory silencing by force -- when you apply it to private actors choosing not to use their private resources to promote others' speech.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  I could not possibly disagree with you any more strongly. I'm far from alone in my opinion. I may even be on the majority side. That doesn't make me right of course. But it is worth your consideration. I could defend my stance. I think you're probably smart and probably know almost everything I'd say. If that's the case then we're resigned to agree to disagree.

scruple 11y ago

> ban this word as they see fit. Then they're going to have a busy night. https://github.com/search?q=retard&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93 https://github.com/search?q=retard&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93

eastbayjake 11y ago

Exactly -- it's not censorship when you give someone something for free but ask them to abide by your rules. If you want the freedom to say whatever you want, pay someone to host your repo or host it yourself.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Zikes 11y ago

Well, in the literal sense it is censorship, being the suppression of materials deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. A bit like a (likely American) TV censor might "bleep" a word they don't want to expose people's delicate sensibilities to. I mean, that doesn't make it "evil", but a lot of people might say that censorship of any sort is a bit of a grey area. That whole "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" thing.

brandonmenc 11y ago
> "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" When it comes down to it, no one would really do this.
- Zikes 11y ago
  You don't think that people would defend to the death one of the basic principles of human rights? To be clear, I'm not saying that Github censoring "retarded" is a human rights issue, but as long as we've gone off the rails let's see where the train comes to a stop.
  - brandonmenc 11y ago
    > You don't think that people would defend to the death one of the basic principles of human rights? A progressive making that claim would never take a bullet so that someone could fly the Confederate flag, for example. It's just not going to happen. They may fight to defend the 1st Amendment, but that's easy because it's a proxy behind which exists all the specific instances of speech they would find horrible along with the speech they hold dear. People making the claim probably mean the latter, but the wording implies something more specific, presumably for effect.
    - Zikes 11y ago
      Ah, it looks like the train didn't make it very far, did it.

PopeOfNope 11y ago

Github can ban this word as they see fit. And people can discuss whether that is or is not appropriate as they see fit. If enough people feel differently, that's when alternative services start to appear.

forgotpasswd3x 11y ago
This always seems to happen in situations like this. People jump to defend the actions of the company with statements like "It's their website, they can do what they want". Which is true, except nobody is arguing that fact.

waterlesscloud 11y ago

No, it is censorship. The idea that private companies can't engage in censorship is incorrect, and in conflict with the definition of the word. Doesn't make it bad, necessarily, but it is censorship.

mehwoot 11y ago
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information The argument is it isn't suppression because as a private company, people can still choose to engage in that speech elsewhere. The government can actually make laws to stop people from saying certain things in any context. When a private company does it, they can only do it in the medium they control and for people who choose to use that medium.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  From the same wiki article you're quoting from - "Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship" It's simply incorrect to say that private companies cannot engage in censorship.
  - zobzu 11y ago
    This is the internet, where retarded people redefine the words and their world view as they see fit. Most comments and up/down votes are about what people like/dislike not about what's either right, interesting or insightful.
    - waterlesscloud 11y ago
      I take every downvote on a comment of undeniable factual information as a clear indication of the downward slide of HN. It is what it is, and the mods couldn't care less.
  - mehwoot 11y ago
    It's simply incorrect to say that private companies cannot engage in censorship. If they have enough control over a medium to effectively suppress speech, then yes. The argument is whether that is the case here. The definition of censorship is not merely "any case where someone prevents someone from saying something". The bar is higher than that.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Snesker 11y ago

Read the last part carefully so as to fully understand why your first statement is incorrect. >Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship :^)