17 ms·

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

by 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.
      - PopeOfNope 11y ago
        The fact there are two camps (GG and anti-GG) means there was a split. What's the difference between the two camps? Ideology and nothing else.
  - kordless 11y ago
    I'm imagining a nightmare scenario where, by some vauge unwritten and immature consensus mechanism, we rationalize even a slight amount of censorship as being OK.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      The actual nightmare scenario is that people with learning disability are killed by doctors because those doctors think "retards have no quality of life". When people toss around the word retard they contribute to a culture that doesn't care about the high levels of violent hate crime experienced by people with a learning disability. And most posts seem to miss the point: their servers, their rules. No one is stopping you from having an open source project that uses the word retard, they're just stopping you from using Github. There's a bunch of other censorship that Github does. > You may not use the Service for any illegal or unauthorized purpose. You must not, in the use of the Service, violate any laws in your jurisdiction (including but not limited to copyright or trademark laws). This, in particular, is restrictive. (Also: we're all assuming the screenshot is genuine.)
      - tragic 11y ago
        > The actual nightmare scenario is that people with learning disability are killed by doctors because those doctors think "retards have no quality of life". When people toss around the word retard they contribute to a culture that doesn't care about the high levels of violent hate crime experienced by people with a learning disability. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. It simply isn't how language works, never mind political change. Simple example: "sinister" used to mean left-handed, and by extension, creepy and evil (as was believed by the superstitious in earlier times). Now it no longer means left-handed, but still means creepy and evil. The connotational meaning has become a denotational meaning, because the idea the word used to express is to all intents and purposes gone. Nobody believes such nonsense about left-handed people any more. Mutatis mutandis, the abolitionists and later civil rights movement did not achieve their aims with regards to racial equality by harassing people for using n-bombs. They fought to change the structural, social reality (slavery, political disenfranchisement, lynchings) that supported the use of such epithets, using all manner of means, from civil disobedience to total war. They had success, albeit not total success. The idea that you can affect the actual levers of power and privilege in society by imposing overweening social taboos on particular words is a peculiarly modern political disease. I am not terrifically concerned about whether you can use the word 'retard' on github without incurring the wrath of moderators. (And really guys - github is your resume, I hear. Don't cover it with playground insults.) But it pains me to see plenty of people with some kind of social conscience completely wasting their energy complaining about stuff like this. You want to protect people with mental disabilities? I'm sure there's a state legislature or equivalent near you slashing funds for learning support in schools, or social care, or disability-related welfare benefits (and if it's anything like it is here in the UK, loudmouthed bigots in the press explicitly calling various needy social categories parasites). Cleaning up a github readme is not an adequate substitute.
manicdee 11y ago
First they came for the cussers and swearers, but I didn't speak out because I don't cuss or swear. Then they came for the homophobes and cisgendered bigots, and I cheered them on, because I value diversity. Then they came for the conspiracy theorists, and I didn't speak out because I don't believe the reptoids are evil. Then they came for me, and there was none left to speak out.
- andylei 11y ago
  the original poem is about how germans systematically eradicated entire racial and political groups. you're comparing it to a website that won't let you save certain content onto their servers.
  - PopeOfNope 11y ago
    A website that, at the moment, retains a significant percentage of the entire free and open source software ecosystem. No, it's not quite as bad as genocide, but we're not suggesting putting anybody to death as a result either.
    - mattyhall 11y ago
      > No, it's not quite as bad as genocide > not quite Do you mean: not at all like genocide?
    - Retra 11y ago
      It retains that software using an open source software ecosystem. You can download git right now and start your own service.
    - golergka 11y ago
      It's not a government, it doesn't have a monopoly on violence or information. People use it freely, and they can easily get most of their information out (wikis and issues no, but it's obvious that they are not part of the repo when you start to use it). You can argue that it's bad, but for fuck's sake, don't compare it to a totalitarian regime that killed tens of millions of people. Please.
tracker1 11y ago
Github is itself using an offensive term... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang)
- scarlson 11y ago
  They also gladly index and help you find brainfuck repos. I can't say fuck on TV, but it's ok on Github. I can't say retard on Github, but it's ok on TV. I'm glad we've accomplished something here.
  - chuckreynolds 11y ago
    lol right? sigh
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Doesn't that reassure you? Assuming this letter is true: they're not stopping you from using offensive words, they're stopping you from using a very small set of words because those words contribute to a culture that cause actual harm. TV is a poor example: it's fine to make jokes about male rape on TV, but everyone loses their shit when an obscured nipple is shown.
    - Mikushi 11y ago
      >Assuming this letter is true: they're not stopping you from using offensive words, they're stopping you from using a very small set of words because those words contribute to a culture that cause actual harm. Says who? What you are describing is textbook censorship. You're offended? So what. Not my problem, step away from the computer.
      - ectoplasm 11y ago
        > You're offended? So what. Not my problem, step away from the computer. Fortunately, you don't own GitHub.
        11y ago
devnonymous 11y ago
To add to that 5. Github as a commercial entity is pretty unlikely to abuse their (indeed worrying, but not scary yet) ability to censor unless some suits decide that they are big enough to not worry about the very community that made them big (IOW, I won't worry until they do a reddit).
- mjblack 11y ago
  No, they have abused it before. They deleted a GamerGate repo then went on twitter to gloat about it.
Animats 11y ago
"This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. It is a private company deciding a word was inappropriate." As a Github user, that kind of thinking worries me. Google Code went away, and Sourceforge started packaging adware and spyware with other people's projects. They could do this because "they were a private company". Now Github's management is starting to throw their weight around. We now need to think about a backup plan in case Github management gets out of line. All their value, after all, is created by others.
- thedz 11y ago
  > We now need to think about a backup plan in case Github management gets out of line. This is a distributed source control system. Keep a clone of the repo somewhere. Your source code is now no longer bound to Github.
  - iwwr 11y ago
    That's not the only reason people use Github. It's the Facebook of programmers in some sense and it's got a critical mass that switching to something else is not practicable (not without some serious momentum).
    - Animats 11y ago
      "It's the Facebook of programmers" Business Insider agrees.[1] Github, Inc. is now valued at $2 billion. Right. Which means we have to worry about Github's management starting to think like Zuckerberg: "All your life is belong to us." [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/github-raises-200-million-worth-2-billion-report-2015-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/github-raises-200-million-wor...
      - mcintyre1994 11y ago
        I think this is an unfair jump because they do have a legitimate business model with enterprise revenue - they don't need to start owning your life to continue to exist.
JungleGymSam 11y ago
> 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. This is bizarre. Your thinking goes directly against our human nature: recognize future danger and try to avoid it. The danger is that you seem to be choosing to not recognize the growing trend towards what are seen as appropriate responses to being offended: shaming, ostracizing, and the forced silence of the "offender". (edit: formatting)
- brc 11y ago
  The online shaming campaigns are stifling expression in a very bad way. Imagine a source code repository where you have to be mindful of your comments, lest you become the target of a SJW out to destroy your career, friendships and reputation? Where is the utility in that? It's bad enough on twitter now that you can only post dry comments if you use your real name. It's too risky to even post the teeniest joke or quip.
  - mjblack 11y ago
    They tried that in the python-cuba wg. The former chair of it stepped down because he has been the target by SJWs trying to ruin his career. What is his crime? He spoke against the GGAB for its criteria on what is a "harasser" after he ended up on it without ever being part of GamerGate.
- babygoat 11y ago
  > The danger is that you seem to be choosing to not recognize the growing trend towards what are seen as appropriate responses to being offended: shaming, ostracizing, and the forced silence of the "offender". So wait, do you have a problem with using language against people or not?
  - JungleGymSam 11y ago
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty
anon3_ 11y ago
> 4. If or when Github actually does something truly abusive of their power to censor, then I'll worry. The discretion in this case was already arbitrary and is cause to worry.
otherusername2 11y ago
> It seems like most in this comment thread agree that this action, as a singular act, is a good thing That's just because those of us who don't are afraid we'll get chewed out here, so we're not commenting.
- shadowmint 11y ago
  Frankly, good. I honestly have no issue with people managing to contain their own righteous opinions (for either side of the debate) and not smash thousands of characters of spam and spam images into issue trackers. That's not what they're for. If the issue doesn't affect you directly (and it doesnt), and you're not a contributor to the project, then dont get involved. There are places for discussions to happen. Github issue trackers are not that place.
  - kazagistar 11y ago
    The issue of someone else getting censored affects everyone who might also get censored. Being silent about injustice against others, just because it does not affect you, is umwise.
    - kenrikm 11y ago
      First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. [1] Please note I am not suggesting that this simple issue is in any way remotely related to the seriousness of what this quote refers too. However, plant enough seeds over long enough and you wake up one day without being able to express things that cause other people to be offended. You don't have to like what someone does or says but they should be able to none the less. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
    - DanBC 11y ago
      A bunch of mostly rich people of mostly above average intelligence using a particular service are asked[1] to refrain from using a particular word, but who are free to set up their own servers and use whatever language they like Versus A lot of mostly poor, vulnerable, people of (by definition) below average intelligence, who are subjected to bullying based ontheir disability; who are segregated from society; who were sometimes sterilised against their will (sometimes without their knowledge); who were used as test subjects in medical experimentation; who were used by the Nazis to test mass-killing techniques before the Nazis started killed Jews; who are denied medical treatment; who are sometimes killed just because of their disability. > Being silent about injustice against others, just because it does not affect you, is umwise. Yes, I agree. I disagree about where the injustice lies.
tn13 11y ago
That is very sensible. Github is free to impose any arbitrary rule and repo admins are free to use competitor's products. In fact Github cares very little about "offense" but probably only cares about their own profits. Private companies applying this sort of censorship is not a bad thing. For example Apple, Google completely control the apps that will feature in their apps stores. That has actually improved the security of mobile devices lot more otherwise imagine a Ask Toolbar app playing an ad each time your call someone.
- Jonasen 11y ago
  There are 53 other repos containing the word retard.. https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=retard https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=retard It seems to me they are just singling out a single commit to be a problem, probably because of someone oversensitive complaining about this single commit, not knowing that github is full of what could be considered offensive to some. I am personally very happy we solved all world problems and now can focus on wording in commits.
  - jgrowl 11y ago
    For that matter.... https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=nigger&type=Repositories&ref=searchresults https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=nigger&type=Repos...
  - sleepybrett 11y ago
    I think making the subtitle of the project 'Webm for retards' might have something to do with it. It's possible this project was reported by an offended user. If it is automated I expect other projects that use the word 'retard' as a project name or subtitle might have email notifications giving them some length of time to change or be banned.
- wooger 11y ago
  Bullshit! This might be true if they only censored for malware, but at present anyone on Android who wants an ad-blocker, or software to interface with various torrent / media servers now has to resort to off-store apps which aren't subject to any review. This is a much larger problem.
tattler 11y ago
> The word was offensive. It's not offensive to me, or a lot of people I know. I can think of far more offensive words to use for disabled people, but retard is just colloquial slang now AFAIC.
- tattler 11y ago
  ...And I'm being downvoted, as proof of what `otherusername2` said above: "That's just because those of us who don't are afraid we'll get chewed out here, so we're not commenting." Words have different meanings for different people it's that simple. These guys shouldn't have had to change their docs. Where will this end? Will we not be able to use cretin next either? What about moron or imbecile? PC gone mad because some people don't understand a joke. Good job South Park isn't hosted on github...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- dmansen 11y ago
  oh cool - hey everybody! this guy says it's okay!!
jlarocco 11y ago
1. Nobody is saying what GitHub did was illegal or not allowed. 2. My biggest complaint about blocking the word is that they singled out this one guy. Even the parent repo still has "retard" and is still available. How ridiculously arbitrary is that? As a GitHub user do I have to worry that maybe one day somebody at GitHub will get butthurt and randomly disable my account over a technicality? Either make the rules apply to everybody, or don't bother having them. 3. Nobody is "choosing to die on some pretty ridiculous hills" over this. People are posting on the internet saying that it's stupid. 4. So you don't mind when you agree with GitHub, but you'll worry when you disagree with GitHub. Private company or not, it's as much my right to say, "Hey, I think that's bullshit," as it is for them to remove content from their website.
- ersii 11y ago
  Regarding 2) It does say in the linked message [1] from GitHub Support that this repository (nixxquality/WebMConverter) was disable as a consequence of the parent repository (WebMBro/WebMConverter) got disabled by GitHub. [1] https://imgur.com/QC51FZz https://imgur.com/QC51FZz
  - jlarocco 11y ago
    It looks like it's changed now, but at the time of my posting the parent repo was up and still used "retards", despite what the image says.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
deciplex 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. This is about the dumbest argument in favor of censorship theoretically possible, btw. Free speech doesn't start and stop at the first amendment to the US constitution. > 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. Actually I see a lively debate as opposed to the general consensus you're suggesting. Trying to win an argument by disingenuously suggesting your opponent's opinion is unpopular, is an underhanded tactic even when you're right. It's plainly stupid when you're wrong. > 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. No one cares about other arguments you've had on the Internet in the past. Stay on topic. > 4. If or when Github actually does something truly abusive of their power to censor, then I'll worry. After heaps of projects are already hosted there, and switching to something more open becomes a larger effort? If that works for you then fine - kindly excuse those of us who take a more proactive stance.
- 02 11y ago
  > Free speech doesn't start and stop at the first amendment to the US constitution. You never had the freedom of speech you think you have. You never had the right to say what you like in my house without getting kicked out, and you never had the right to say 'retard' on GitHub. Sorry. You can mourn its loss now if you like.
  - tux3 11y ago
    We do, however, have the right to complain about it and take our business elsewhere. I'm not sure why you would see a problem with that.
    - madeofpalk 11y ago
      ...sure, but freedom of 'using whatever source code hosting provider' is a different (legal) concept as 'freedom of speech'.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. This is a weirdly common kind of thing for people to say. I don't understand what the point is supposed to be. It's still a bad thing. We have prohibitions on the government doing this because it's bad. We don't have prohibitions on people censoring third parties in their own homes, because that would be worse. This is still bad for all the same reasons it would be bad if the government were doing it. We're not criticizing github for doing something illegal. We're criticizing it for doing something wrong.
- zurn 11y ago
  No, government censorship is qualitatively different. It is specially regulated for good reason. The term isn't even usually applied in contexts like this one. This here is usually called moderation or content policy or editorial standards etc. And most people don't consider it a bad thing. But certainly are arguments for largest market share holders to have some kind of neutrality standards, like implemented in common carrier or net neutrality regulations. And in the other direction: at least in the EU there has been a big push to hold forums responsible for things like defamation and hate speech. eg http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/shock-european-court-decision-websites-are-liable-for-users-comments-2/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/shock-european-co...
  - pkinsky 11y ago
    >The term isn't even usually applied in contexts like this one. This here is usually called moderation or content policy or editorial standards etc. And most people don't consider it a bad thing. This is false. Facebook's ban on photos showing female nipples is constantly referred to as censorship. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lina-esco/facebook-war-on-nipples_b_4548832.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lina-esco/facebook-war-on-nipp...
    - zurn 11y ago
      I definitely agree there is such a thing as censorship by non-government actors, but Facebook plays a very different role from Github. There's also a lot of uproar about Facebook and Twitter doing too little to weed out objectionable things. But it's still qualitatively different from government censorship, which is imposed on third party media.
jstuxx 11y ago
"The word was offensive." Offensive, oh please Linus has used and continues to use that word and worse (way worse) to bash his competition: Sun, Microsoft, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, Sourceforge, Subversion, CVS, C++ programmers, nVidia etc. Linus has been way more offensive hence why people find it hypocritical.
Perseids 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. It is a private company, alright, but it is also becoming a critical company for the internet as a whole. Which points to an important question our society will have to face more and more often with increasing centralization and globalization: When does a company become essential infrastructure and be judged (morally, by law, by the executive) different to any other private entity. During the financial crisis we have seen that large parts of the banking sector were deemed "to big to fail" and kept on life support by the government. Facebook has grown large enough than any changes in their TOS and privacy policy are closely watched and often criticized by a multitude of public parties and the press (at least in Germany). I've only recently realized how far we have come in terms of better development standards when I tried find the official repository for ncurses (which is a GNU project, by the way). There is none. The current development code is hosted via ftp as a set of tarball snapshots [1]. As far as I can tell, no development history beside the change notes of each snapshot before May 2015 is publicly accessible. Issue tracking seems to be handled over the mailing list [2]. And I asked myself, why can't this project be hosted on GitHub? The answer depends on how reliable GitHub turns out - or continues - to be. If we can't hold GitHub to a higher standard than just "they are a private company, they may do whatever they want", then ncurses should host its own issue tracker and git repository. But if we judge GitHub as an infrastructure, then sure, host this core GNU project via a private company. > 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. Note that how to deal with swear words or offensive words in general is very culture specific. In the society I live in I seldom encounter cussing or "inappropriate behaviour", but when I do, they are next to never beeped over or blurred out. Rather, when in bad faith, they serve to disqualify the speaker. (And when they are used in good faith they benefit artistic freedom.) This is not to say "our" way of dealing with questionable or offensive behaviour is the "right" one. Rather, if we hold GitHub to internet infrastructure standards, then they have to find some middle ground between corporate America puritanism and the diverse culture that surrounds it. It's not an easy task, see for example Facebook's debate on nudity vs. breast feeding, but otherwise every entry on GitHub will be as boring as Oracle documentation - no more "Hurr durr I'ma sheep" releases for you. [1] ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/current/ [2] The issue at question being that no ncurses release compiles with the current GCC: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-ncurses/2015-06/msg00024.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-ncurses/2015-06/msg00...
tomjen3 11y ago
1) If it was we would be suing github, not discussing it here 2) Appeal to the majority 3) When you defend freedom of speech you end up defending mostly scoundrels since it is against them the rules will first be used 4) That was about a year ago.
njharman 11y ago
1. Obviously or there'd be a lawsuit. Not everything that is wrong or destructive is coded into law. Censorship as a concept exists outside of the law. All censorship, legal or not, should be strongly scrutinized.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
romaniv 11y ago
I'm not commenting on this particular case, but in general I reject such arguments. This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. Neither is posting something offensive. Have you thought about that? Yes, GitHub owns the servers. If you haven't notices already, someone owns every single piece of the Internet. people are choosing to die on some pretty ridiculous hills. If you just ignore it, censorship and selective enforcement becomes a socially acceptable practice through sheer repetition and groupthink.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
syoc 11y ago
1. Still censorship. 2. "Github asked the repo to change it." Did github say: Can you please not use the word retarded?. No, they shut down the repo. Huge difference. 3. What a rediculous hill is is quite subjective. 4. Github can improve even though it's not sourceforge. The argument there is no need to fix any problem that is not "truly abusive" does no hold.
th0waway 11y ago
Sooo, what you're saying is that it's OK for any company to ignore any rights of yours that they don't agree with? Interesting. Of course, it isn't illegal, but does that still mean they should do it?
- andylei 11y ago
  rights? you have a right to save your content onto their servers?
  - grotsnot 11y ago
    That's what users pay them for, is it not?
    - andylei 11y ago
      rights are something you pay people for? open source projects are certainly not paying github
- mcdougle 11y ago
  > It isn't illegal, but does that mean they should still do it? Exactly. They're a private company, they're free to do whatever they want within the legal limits. The argument isn't whether they're allowed to do it (whether the first amendment applies here), but rather, should they do it? I say probably not. In many cases, morals/ethics are subjective and should not be enforced upon others. The key word is enforced -- I'm all for them contacting the user and saying "Listen, man, this isn't cool -- please change it." In general, I'm against the enforcement of personal morals upon others, except in obvious circumstances (we probably shouldn't hurt/kill/steal from/etc. each other). Discussion and debate is cool, enforcement is not. And just as the company itself has the right to censor whatever it pleases, its users have the right to stop using their services when they feel that the company is infringing on their rights -- which is what a lot of people here are saying (they're not saying "this is bad, the company should get in trouble for it," they're saying "this is bad, I refuse to do business with a bad company").
serge2k 11y ago
They didn't ask, they said do it or else. Extortion. If someone was upset enough to complain, why not file a PR or start a discussion instead?
lexcorvus 11y ago
1. This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. This is true, but the same can be said of the Hollywood blacklist [1] during the Red Scare. Do you support Hollywood blacklist–style ideological litmus tests in technology? If you think such things are a bad idea, and you think a culture that encourages them is dysfunctional, then legality is really beside the point. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
neetery 11y ago
Sorry retard, it's actually a giant problem that access to this very popular and useful fork was interrupted for like a week (and would have been indefinite if the owner was inactive) due to an upstream repo using a mean word.

by thedz 11y ago

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.
    - PopeOfNope 11y ago
      The fact there are two camps (GG and anti-GG) means there was a split. What's the difference between the two camps? Ideology and nothing else.
- kordless 11y ago
  I'm imagining a nightmare scenario where, by some vauge unwritten and immature consensus mechanism, we rationalize even a slight amount of censorship as being OK.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    The actual nightmare scenario is that people with learning disability are killed by doctors because those doctors think "retards have no quality of life". When people toss around the word retard they contribute to a culture that doesn't care about the high levels of violent hate crime experienced by people with a learning disability. And most posts seem to miss the point: their servers, their rules. No one is stopping you from having an open source project that uses the word retard, they're just stopping you from using Github. There's a bunch of other censorship that Github does. > You may not use the Service for any illegal or unauthorized purpose. You must not, in the use of the Service, violate any laws in your jurisdiction (including but not limited to copyright or trademark laws). This, in particular, is restrictive. (Also: we're all assuming the screenshot is genuine.)
    - tragic 11y ago
      > The actual nightmare scenario is that people with learning disability are killed by doctors because those doctors think "retards have no quality of life". When people toss around the word retard they contribute to a culture that doesn't care about the high levels of violent hate crime experienced by people with a learning disability. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. It simply isn't how language works, never mind political change. Simple example: "sinister" used to mean left-handed, and by extension, creepy and evil (as was believed by the superstitious in earlier times). Now it no longer means left-handed, but still means creepy and evil. The connotational meaning has become a denotational meaning, because the idea the word used to express is to all intents and purposes gone. Nobody believes such nonsense about left-handed people any more. Mutatis mutandis, the abolitionists and later civil rights movement did not achieve their aims with regards to racial equality by harassing people for using n-bombs. They fought to change the structural, social reality (slavery, political disenfranchisement, lynchings) that supported the use of such epithets, using all manner of means, from civil disobedience to total war. They had success, albeit not total success. The idea that you can affect the actual levers of power and privilege in society by imposing overweening social taboos on particular words is a peculiarly modern political disease. I am not terrifically concerned about whether you can use the word 'retard' on github without incurring the wrath of moderators. (And really guys - github is your resume, I hear. Don't cover it with playground insults.) But it pains me to see plenty of people with some kind of social conscience completely wasting their energy complaining about stuff like this. You want to protect people with mental disabilities? I'm sure there's a state legislature or equivalent near you slashing funds for learning support in schools, or social care, or disability-related welfare benefits (and if it's anything like it is here in the UK, loudmouthed bigots in the press explicitly calling various needy social categories parasites). Cleaning up a github readme is not an adequate substitute.

manicdee 11y ago

First they came for the cussers and swearers, but I didn't speak out because I don't cuss or swear. Then they came for the homophobes and cisgendered bigots, and I cheered them on, because I value diversity. Then they came for the conspiracy theorists, and I didn't speak out because I don't believe the reptoids are evil. Then they came for me, and there was none left to speak out.

andylei 11y ago
the original poem is about how germans systematically eradicated entire racial and political groups. you're comparing it to a website that won't let you save certain content onto their servers.
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  A website that, at the moment, retains a significant percentage of the entire free and open source software ecosystem. No, it's not quite as bad as genocide, but we're not suggesting putting anybody to death as a result either.
  - mattyhall 11y ago
    > No, it's not quite as bad as genocide > not quite Do you mean: not at all like genocide?
  - Retra 11y ago
    It retains that software using an open source software ecosystem. You can download git right now and start your own service.
  - golergka 11y ago
    It's not a government, it doesn't have a monopoly on violence or information. People use it freely, and they can easily get most of their information out (wikis and issues no, but it's obvious that they are not part of the repo when you start to use it). You can argue that it's bad, but for fuck's sake, don't compare it to a totalitarian regime that killed tens of millions of people. Please.

tracker1 11y ago

Github is itself using an offensive term... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang)

scarlson 11y ago
They also gladly index and help you find brainfuck repos. I can't say fuck on TV, but it's ok on Github. I can't say retard on Github, but it's ok on TV. I'm glad we've accomplished something here.
- chuckreynolds 11y ago
  lol right? sigh
- DanBC 11y ago
  Doesn't that reassure you? Assuming this letter is true: they're not stopping you from using offensive words, they're stopping you from using a very small set of words because those words contribute to a culture that cause actual harm. TV is a poor example: it's fine to make jokes about male rape on TV, but everyone loses their shit when an obscured nipple is shown.
  - Mikushi 11y ago
    >Assuming this letter is true: they're not stopping you from using offensive words, they're stopping you from using a very small set of words because those words contribute to a culture that cause actual harm. Says who? What you are describing is textbook censorship. You're offended? So what. Not my problem, step away from the computer.
    - ectoplasm 11y ago
      > You're offended? So what. Not my problem, step away from the computer. Fortunately, you don't own GitHub.
      - 11y ago

devnonymous 11y ago

To add to that 5. Github as a commercial entity is pretty unlikely to abuse their (indeed worrying, but not scary yet) ability to censor unless some suits decide that they are big enough to not worry about the very community that made them big (IOW, I won't worry until they do a reddit).

mjblack 11y ago
No, they have abused it before. They deleted a GamerGate repo then went on twitter to gloat about it.

Animats 11y ago

"This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. It is a private company deciding a word was inappropriate." As a Github user, that kind of thinking worries me. Google Code went away, and Sourceforge started packaging adware and spyware with other people's projects. They could do this because "they were a private company". Now Github's management is starting to throw their weight around. We now need to think about a backup plan in case Github management gets out of line. All their value, after all, is created by others.

thedz 11y ago
> We now need to think about a backup plan in case Github management gets out of line. This is a distributed source control system. Keep a clone of the repo somewhere. Your source code is now no longer bound to Github.
- iwwr 11y ago
  That's not the only reason people use Github. It's the Facebook of programmers in some sense and it's got a critical mass that switching to something else is not practicable (not without some serious momentum).
  - Animats 11y ago
    "It's the Facebook of programmers" Business Insider agrees.[1] Github, Inc. is now valued at $2 billion. Right. Which means we have to worry about Github's management starting to think like Zuckerberg: "All your life is belong to us." [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/github-raises-200-million-worth-2-billion-report-2015-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/github-raises-200-million-wor...
    - mcintyre1994 11y ago
      I think this is an unfair jump because they do have a legitimate business model with enterprise revenue - they don't need to start owning your life to continue to exist.

JungleGymSam 11y ago

> 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. This is bizarre. Your thinking goes directly against our human nature: recognize future danger and try to avoid it. The danger is that you seem to be choosing to not recognize the growing trend towards what are seen as appropriate responses to being offended: shaming, ostracizing, and the forced silence of the "offender". (edit: formatting)

brc 11y ago
The online shaming campaigns are stifling expression in a very bad way. Imagine a source code repository where you have to be mindful of your comments, lest you become the target of a SJW out to destroy your career, friendships and reputation? Where is the utility in that? It's bad enough on twitter now that you can only post dry comments if you use your real name. It's too risky to even post the teeniest joke or quip.
- mjblack 11y ago
  They tried that in the python-cuba wg. The former chair of it stepped down because he has been the target by SJWs trying to ruin his career. What is his crime? He spoke against the GGAB for its criteria on what is a "harasser" after he ended up on it without ever being part of GamerGate.
babygoat 11y ago
> The danger is that you seem to be choosing to not recognize the growing trend towards what are seen as appropriate responses to being offended: shaming, ostracizing, and the forced silence of the "offender". So wait, do you have a problem with using language against people or not?
- JungleGymSam 11y ago
  * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

anon3_ 11y ago

> 4. If or when Github actually does something truly abusive of their power to censor, then I'll worry. The discretion in this case was already arbitrary and is cause to worry.

otherusername2 11y ago

> It seems like most in this comment thread agree that this action, as a singular act, is a good thing That's just because those of us who don't are afraid we'll get chewed out here, so we're not commenting.

shadowmint 11y ago
Frankly, good. I honestly have no issue with people managing to contain their own righteous opinions (for either side of the debate) and not smash thousands of characters of spam and spam images into issue trackers. That's not what they're for. If the issue doesn't affect you directly (and it doesnt), and you're not a contributor to the project, then dont get involved. There are places for discussions to happen. Github issue trackers are not that place.
- kazagistar 11y ago
  The issue of someone else getting censored affects everyone who might also get censored. Being silent about injustice against others, just because it does not affect you, is umwise.
  - kenrikm 11y ago
    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. [1] Please note I am not suggesting that this simple issue is in any way remotely related to the seriousness of what this quote refers too. However, plant enough seeds over long enough and you wake up one day without being able to express things that cause other people to be offended. You don't have to like what someone does or says but they should be able to none the less. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
  - DanBC 11y ago
    A bunch of mostly rich people of mostly above average intelligence using a particular service are asked[1] to refrain from using a particular word, but who are free to set up their own servers and use whatever language they like Versus A lot of mostly poor, vulnerable, people of (by definition) below average intelligence, who are subjected to bullying based ontheir disability; who are segregated from society; who were sometimes sterilised against their will (sometimes without their knowledge); who were used as test subjects in medical experimentation; who were used by the Nazis to test mass-killing techniques before the Nazis started killed Jews; who are denied medical treatment; who are sometimes killed just because of their disability. > Being silent about injustice against others, just because it does not affect you, is umwise. Yes, I agree. I disagree about where the injustice lies.

tn13 11y ago

That is very sensible. Github is free to impose any arbitrary rule and repo admins are free to use competitor's products. In fact Github cares very little about "offense" but probably only cares about their own profits. Private companies applying this sort of censorship is not a bad thing. For example Apple, Google completely control the apps that will feature in their apps stores. That has actually improved the security of mobile devices lot more otherwise imagine a Ask Toolbar app playing an ad each time your call someone.

Jonasen 11y ago
There are 53 other repos containing the word retard.. https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=retard https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=retard It seems to me they are just singling out a single commit to be a problem, probably because of someone oversensitive complaining about this single commit, not knowing that github is full of what could be considered offensive to some. I am personally very happy we solved all world problems and now can focus on wording in commits.
- jgrowl 11y ago
  For that matter.... https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=nigger&type=Repositories&ref=searchresults https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=nigger&type=Repos...
- sleepybrett 11y ago
  I think making the subtitle of the project 'Webm for retards' might have something to do with it. It's possible this project was reported by an offended user. If it is automated I expect other projects that use the word 'retard' as a project name or subtitle might have email notifications giving them some length of time to change or be banned.
wooger 11y ago
Bullshit! This might be true if they only censored for malware, but at present anyone on Android who wants an ad-blocker, or software to interface with various torrent / media servers now has to resort to off-store apps which aren't subject to any review. This is a much larger problem.

tattler 11y ago

> The word was offensive. It's not offensive to me, or a lot of people I know. I can think of far more offensive words to use for disabled people, but retard is just colloquial slang now AFAIC.

tattler 11y ago
...And I'm being downvoted, as proof of what `otherusername2` said above: "That's just because those of us who don't are afraid we'll get chewed out here, so we're not commenting." Words have different meanings for different people it's that simple. These guys shouldn't have had to change their docs. Where will this end? Will we not be able to use cretin next either? What about moron or imbecile? PC gone mad because some people don't understand a joke. Good job South Park isn't hosted on github...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
dmansen 11y ago
oh cool - hey everybody! this guy says it's okay!!

jlarocco 11y ago

1. Nobody is saying what GitHub did was illegal or not allowed. 2. My biggest complaint about blocking the word is that they singled out this one guy. Even the parent repo still has "retard" and is still available. How ridiculously arbitrary is that? As a GitHub user do I have to worry that maybe one day somebody at GitHub will get butthurt and randomly disable my account over a technicality? Either make the rules apply to everybody, or don't bother having them. 3. Nobody is "choosing to die on some pretty ridiculous hills" over this. People are posting on the internet saying that it's stupid. 4. So you don't mind when you agree with GitHub, but you'll worry when you disagree with GitHub. Private company or not, it's as much my right to say, "Hey, I think that's bullshit," as it is for them to remove content from their website.

ersii 11y ago
Regarding 2) It does say in the linked message [1] from GitHub Support that this repository (nixxquality/WebMConverter) was disable as a consequence of the parent repository (WebMBro/WebMConverter) got disabled by GitHub. [1] https://imgur.com/QC51FZz https://imgur.com/QC51FZz
- jlarocco 11y ago
  It looks like it's changed now, but at the time of my posting the parent repo was up and still used "retards", despite what the image says.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

deciplex 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. This is about the dumbest argument in favor of censorship theoretically possible, btw. Free speech doesn't start and stop at the first amendment to the US constitution. > 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. Actually I see a lively debate as opposed to the general consensus you're suggesting. Trying to win an argument by disingenuously suggesting your opponent's opinion is unpopular, is an underhanded tactic even when you're right. It's plainly stupid when you're wrong. > 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. No one cares about other arguments you've had on the Internet in the past. Stay on topic. > 4. If or when Github actually does something truly abusive of their power to censor, then I'll worry. After heaps of projects are already hosted there, and switching to something more open becomes a larger effort? If that works for you then fine - kindly excuse those of us who take a more proactive stance.

02 11y ago
> Free speech doesn't start and stop at the first amendment to the US constitution. You never had the freedom of speech you think you have. You never had the right to say what you like in my house without getting kicked out, and you never had the right to say 'retard' on GitHub. Sorry. You can mourn its loss now if you like.
- tux3 11y ago
  We do, however, have the right to complain about it and take our business elsewhere. I'm not sure why you would see a problem with that.
  - madeofpalk 11y ago
    ...sure, but freedom of 'using whatever source code hosting provider' is a different (legal) concept as 'freedom of speech'.

thaumasiotes 11y ago

> This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. This is a weirdly common kind of thing for people to say. I don't understand what the point is supposed to be. It's still a bad thing. We have prohibitions on the government doing this because it's bad. We don't have prohibitions on people censoring third parties in their own homes, because that would be worse. This is still bad for all the same reasons it would be bad if the government were doing it. We're not criticizing github for doing something illegal. We're criticizing it for doing something wrong.

zurn 11y ago
No, government censorship is qualitatively different. It is specially regulated for good reason. The term isn't even usually applied in contexts like this one. This here is usually called moderation or content policy or editorial standards etc. And most people don't consider it a bad thing. But certainly are arguments for largest market share holders to have some kind of neutrality standards, like implemented in common carrier or net neutrality regulations. And in the other direction: at least in the EU there has been a big push to hold forums responsible for things like defamation and hate speech. eg http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/shock-european-court-decision-websites-are-liable-for-users-comments-2/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/shock-european-co...
- pkinsky 11y ago
  >The term isn't even usually applied in contexts like this one. This here is usually called moderation or content policy or editorial standards etc. And most people don't consider it a bad thing. This is false. Facebook's ban on photos showing female nipples is constantly referred to as censorship. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lina-esco/facebook-war-on-nipples_b_4548832.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lina-esco/facebook-war-on-nipp...
  - zurn 11y ago
    I definitely agree there is such a thing as censorship by non-government actors, but Facebook plays a very different role from Github. There's also a lot of uproar about Facebook and Twitter doing too little to weed out objectionable things. But it's still qualitatively different from government censorship, which is imposed on third party media.

jstuxx 11y ago

"The word was offensive." Offensive, oh please Linus has used and continues to use that word and worse (way worse) to bash his competition: Sun, Microsoft, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, Sourceforge, Subversion, CVS, C++ programmers, nVidia etc. Linus has been way more offensive hence why people find it hypocritical.

Perseids 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. It is a private company, alright, but it is also becoming a critical company for the internet as a whole. Which points to an important question our society will have to face more and more often with increasing centralization and globalization: When does a company become essential infrastructure and be judged (morally, by law, by the executive) different to any other private entity. During the financial crisis we have seen that large parts of the banking sector were deemed "to big to fail" and kept on life support by the government. Facebook has grown large enough than any changes in their TOS and privacy policy are closely watched and often criticized by a multitude of public parties and the press (at least in Germany). I've only recently realized how far we have come in terms of better development standards when I tried find the official repository for ncurses (which is a GNU project, by the way). There is none. The current development code is hosted via ftp as a set of tarball snapshots [1]. As far as I can tell, no development history beside the change notes of each snapshot before May 2015 is publicly accessible. Issue tracking seems to be handled over the mailing list [2]. And I asked myself, why can't this project be hosted on GitHub? The answer depends on how reliable GitHub turns out - or continues - to be. If we can't hold GitHub to a higher standard than just "they are a private company, they may do whatever they want", then ncurses should host its own issue tracker and git repository. But if we judge GitHub as an infrastructure, then sure, host this core GNU project via a private company. > 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. Note that how to deal with swear words or offensive words in general is very culture specific. In the society I live in I seldom encounter cussing or "inappropriate behaviour", but when I do, they are next to never beeped over or blurred out. Rather, when in bad faith, they serve to disqualify the speaker. (And when they are used in good faith they benefit artistic freedom.) This is not to say "our" way of dealing with questionable or offensive behaviour is the "right" one. Rather, if we hold GitHub to internet infrastructure standards, then they have to find some middle ground between corporate America puritanism and the diverse culture that surrounds it. It's not an easy task, see for example Facebook's debate on nudity vs. breast feeding, but otherwise every entry on GitHub will be as boring as Oracle documentation - no more "Hurr durr I'ma sheep" releases for you. [1] ftp://invisible-island.net/ncurses/current/ [2] The issue at question being that no ncurses release compiles with the current GCC: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-ncurses/2015-06/msg00024.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-ncurses/2015-06/msg00...

tomjen3 11y ago

1) If it was we would be suing github, not discussing it here 2) Appeal to the majority 3) When you defend freedom of speech you end up defending mostly scoundrels since it is against them the rules will first be used 4) That was about a year ago.

njharman 11y ago

1. Obviously or there'd be a lawsuit. Not everything that is wrong or destructive is coded into law. Censorship as a concept exists outside of the law. All censorship, legal or not, should be strongly scrutinized.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

romaniv 11y ago

I'm not commenting on this particular case, but in general I reject such arguments. This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. Neither is posting something offensive. Have you thought about that? Yes, GitHub owns the servers. If you haven't notices already, someone owns every single piece of the Internet. people are choosing to die on some pretty ridiculous hills. If you just ignore it, censorship and selective enforcement becomes a socially acceptable practice through sheer repetition and groupthink.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

syoc 11y ago

1. Still censorship. 2. "Github asked the repo to change it." Did github say: Can you please not use the word retarded?. No, they shut down the repo. Huge difference. 3. What a rediculous hill is is quite subjective. 4. Github can improve even though it's not sourceforge. The argument there is no need to fix any problem that is not "truly abusive" does no hold.

th0waway 11y ago

Sooo, what you're saying is that it's OK for any company to ignore any rights of yours that they don't agree with? Interesting. Of course, it isn't illegal, but does that still mean they should do it?

andylei 11y ago
rights? you have a right to save your content onto their servers?
- grotsnot 11y ago
  That's what users pay them for, is it not?
  - andylei 11y ago
    rights are something you pay people for? open source projects are certainly not paying github
mcdougle 11y ago
> It isn't illegal, but does that mean they should still do it? Exactly. They're a private company, they're free to do whatever they want within the legal limits. The argument isn't whether they're allowed to do it (whether the first amendment applies here), but rather, should they do it? I say probably not. In many cases, morals/ethics are subjective and should not be enforced upon others. The key word is enforced -- I'm all for them contacting the user and saying "Listen, man, this isn't cool -- please change it." In general, I'm against the enforcement of personal morals upon others, except in obvious circumstances (we probably shouldn't hurt/kill/steal from/etc. each other). Discussion and debate is cool, enforcement is not. And just as the company itself has the right to censor whatever it pleases, its users have the right to stop using their services when they feel that the company is infringing on their rights -- which is what a lot of people here are saying (they're not saying "this is bad, the company should get in trouble for it," they're saying "this is bad, I refuse to do business with a bad company").

serge2k 11y ago

They didn't ask, they said do it or else. Extortion. If someone was upset enough to complain, why not file a PR or start a discussion instead?

lexcorvus 11y ago

1. This isn't censorship of the type that is illegal or not allowed. This is true, but the same can be said of the Hollywood blacklist [1] during the Red Scare. Do you support Hollywood blacklist–style ideological litmus tests in technology? If you think such things are a bad idea, and you think a culture that encourages them is dysfunctional, then legality is really beside the point. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist

neetery 11y ago

Sorry retard, it's actually a giant problem that access to this very popular and useful fork was interrupted for like a week (and would have been indefinite if the owner was inactive) due to an upstream repo using a mean word.