5 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. This is about the dumbest arg

> 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'.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      When people say "freedom of speech" and they're not talking about a government entity, it's a pretty safe bet that they're talking about the principle enshrined in the first amendment, not the first amendment itself. Considering that The Internet as a whole is basically amounts to a whole lot of interconnected, other people's (back yards/restaurants/other poor analogies for physical spaces), saying "but the first doesn't apply" is both willfully obtuse and missing the point.
      - babygoat 11y ago
        > saying "but the first doesn't apply" is both willfully obtuse and missing the point. It's almost always a response to a person who seems to think that freedom of speech means they shouldn't have to face any consequences for the horrible things they say.
        Karunamon 11y ago
        And this itself is a mischaracterization. The problem is that the rubric for "horrible things to say" has been extended so far as to cover usage of the word "retard". Much like the rubric for "harassment" has been extended to cover simple incivility.
- deciplex 11y ago
  I don't know what it is about this particular topic that compels people to flood the conversation with egregious strawman fallacies, but anyway: I never suggested any of the shit that you're implying I did, so your argument falls totally flat and completely misses the point. Probably no one posting in this ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD is arguing that Github broke the damn law. Quit pretending otherwise. TIA. I mean, it's right in what you quoted! Read it again: > Free speech doesn't start and stop at the first amendment to the US constitution.
learnstats2 11y ago
>Free speech doesn't start and stop at the first amendment to the US constitution. No, it really does, for most people. For example, you don't have the right to publish in the New York Times. Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. Corporations love the first amendment because they get to set the narrative without interference.

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'.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    When people say "freedom of speech" and they're not talking about a government entity, it's a pretty safe bet that they're talking about the principle enshrined in the first amendment, not the first amendment itself. Considering that The Internet as a whole is basically amounts to a whole lot of interconnected, other people's (back yards/restaurants/other poor analogies for physical spaces), saying "but the first doesn't apply" is both willfully obtuse and missing the point.
    - babygoat 11y ago
      > saying "but the first doesn't apply" is both willfully obtuse and missing the point. It's almost always a response to a person who seems to think that freedom of speech means they shouldn't have to face any consequences for the horrible things they say.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        And this itself is a mischaracterization. The problem is that the rubric for "horrible things to say" has been extended so far as to cover usage of the word "retard". Much like the rubric for "harassment" has been extended to cover simple incivility.
deciplex 11y ago
I don't know what it is about this particular topic that compels people to flood the conversation with egregious strawman fallacies, but anyway: I never suggested any of the shit that you're implying I did, so your argument falls totally flat and completely misses the point. Probably no one posting in this ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD is arguing that Github broke the damn law. Quit pretending otherwise. TIA. I mean, it's right in what you quoted! Read it again: > Free speech doesn't start and stop at the first amendment to the US constitution.

learnstats2 11y ago

>Free speech doesn't start and stop at the first amendment to the US constitution. No, it really does, for most people. For example, you don't have the right to publish in the New York Times. Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. Corporations love the first amendment because they get to set the narrative without interference.