Maybe we should instead ban those who call out this stuff or describe it in malicious ways...
Maybe we should instead ban those who call out this stuff or describe it in malicious ways...
That said, I personally think it should be difficult to be racist, homophobic, transphobic and the like online. I'm not engaging in debates, posting outraged tweetstorms or trying to get anyone doxxed/fired/cancelled when I see some anonymous edgelord throwing the n-bomb around or calling for LGBTQ+ friends to be killed. I'm just going to quietly report the post and move on.
People still buy Nestle and they do far worse shit.
People have no problem supporting corporations that do business with racist regimes.
Claiming somehow people (other than some virtue signalling) would start migrating in droves to gitlab because there is a mod for rimworld is insane.
Whenever I see "virtue signalling" or "free speech" mentioned regarding tech companies like GitHub, Facebook, Twitter etc it's usually someone pretending they don't understand how companies work (and ironically doing their own little form of virtue signalling). Companies want to make money. You don't make money by pissing off the population. GitHub seem to have decided that allowing a user they've deemed as questionable is going to piss off more people than kicking that user off. If you don't like it and want to exercise your freedom of speech and/or signal that you're more virtuous than the rest of us then you are welcome to self-host or try out GitLab, BitBucket, sr.ht or CodeBerg.
And in case of someone discussing it, like here, there is no need to guess and dig if the reason is given plainly by the moderator and points directly to the offense. Instead of speculation you get people look at it and just go "oh, yeah, that's fair" and move on.
Yeetus deletus of everything, including unrelated things, because you broke TOS point which we don't even tell you how did you break it (which is pretty fucking common with any big tech, regardless of the reason, even if reason is just "triggered some heuristics in our system") is not okay.
However, if Github is actively curating content, that means they're also responsible for the stuff they do leave up. The argument that a company isn't legally responsible for its users content relies heavily on the company having little control over said content.
This direct influence is what got the thepiratebay guys and the megaupload guys arrested, or at least what made the case persuable enough to put effort into it.
Id it's true that Github is actively removing account that post things they deem as racist, then I will judge Github on any older content on the platform not taken down. There is a lot of weird shit on Github that's apparently okay if a stupid mod for a video game is considered as a reason to refuse service to someone.
Companies are free to choose what they do and do not host, but that freedom is a double edged sword.
This is an entirely incorrect reading of Section 230.
You mentioned the "black little mermaid" and it's hard not to draw a parallel between a mod in a game that allows you to change the skin color of a character and the "woke" media race swapping well known characters like the little mermaid, Triss from the Witcher, Achilles, etc.
I don't know what to say - if you're expecting "free speech" somewhere that has a big TOS you agreed to which doesn't say "hey this is the free speech zone, go nuts!" then you are in for a shock.
The Little Mermaid is an film for kids. Kids aren't "woke" - the only people who care about the skin colour of a fictional character in an animated film are adults. If someone's upset because they see a black person, they might want to take a deep breath and think really hard about what's really bothering them.
... if the person you are engaging with is open to having their mind changed. If you ever tried that with online trolls, you would quickly find out that's not really going to happen when person on the other side doesn't want that and can just decide to waste as much of your time as they can.