> 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.
> What interesting controversial content are they banning specifically?
They ban interesting content all the time - a very recent example is they banned the AYTU Bioscience page where they talk about an experimental covid treatment.
> If only Hacker News crowd noticed when thousands of videos with interviews, medical lectures, news footage and even congressional testimonies were removed for political reasons within the last couple years.
Do you happen to have any reference that points out which content was removed for political reasons?
You're on HN. If said censorship exists then nothing stops you from pointing it on HN.
> 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".
Calling censorship take downs due to copyright infringement and alikes seems like a stretch.
There's a difference between things taken down due to the political agenda of the government (Russia), and things taken down because they violate someone else's rights (West).
> I absolutely think that private organisations can effectively ban something without government intervention. I just don't think that happened here.
Oh, absolutely. To be honest I'm not terribly interested in the specifics of this case, just the general idea that today, when so much communication happens on privately-owned platforms, corporate censorship is not censorship because only governments censor.
> 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.
> The word censorship has so many meanings that I have to ask what you mean by it before I can say whether I see it that way.
Perhaps its one of those things that are hard to define. [1] But that doesn't mean clear cases don't exist.
> Is it censorship that the rules of chess say you can't poke someone's queen off the board? We're trying to play a particular game here.
No, but it is clearly political censorship if you only apply the unwritten and secret "rules" of the game to a particular political faction. Also, banning entire domain names is definitely heavy-handed.
> I just think censorship and cancellation is wrong and immoral, even if it is legally allowed. I think it is immoral for some business executive to make sweeping decisions about what the commoners are / aren't allowed to see
I don't think anyone is accusing HN of censorship or making oppressive decisions about what the commoners can / can't see. It's accepted that some level of curation and guidelines are needed to foster a healthy environment.
DDG (and HN) are not a public square, they're private companies conducting business according to their individual desires and motivations.
It would be equally folly to force HN to host political content as it would to tell DDG how they can and can't alter their proprietary ranking algorithms.
Censorship is really a problem when the government (or a monopoly) starts censoring content, with the ability to enforce that censorship nearly or practically universally. Until then, the free market will do it's work.
> EU blocking RT.com (and a few others) was quite a shock for me,... really a thing that should not be happening in EU (no matter whose propaganda it is).
Why? Neo-nazi sites have a long history of getting banned everywhere.
> This argument comes with the rather absurd assumption that the only material that's being blocked is that which the community agrees is harmful.
The new orthodoxy requires us to assume that all censorship is in good faith. "What were you doing to make them censor you?" is the question of the day.
They banned vimeo for ISIS video just day before github. They also banned youtube and vkontakte before.
>Still, I'm surprised they bother with github being such a specialized website.
They are just targeting all popular resources on purpose to make public case.
reply