Hacker News Reader

Comment by KirinDave | Hacker News Reader

Probably because facebook is by design a mechanism of human communication. Github is a mechanism for sharing code. The words used and then rejected were useless, and substituting them did not affect the communication in any meaningful way.

Calling vocabulary subs like this "censorship" greatly glorifies the users of said language, as unless they're deliberately trying to be offensive there is always an equally useful word at hand.

View on HN

I personally feel that offensive language should be censored because they’re intended to be offensive and hurtful to people, while OTOH if its obviously not purposely offensive but just a method of expression, it should be given a pass. Leave that to self-censorship / the readers / users.

Also, given the semi-monopoly that these sites have, I think that they have some sort of responsibility to not exploit network effects and alienate users just because they can.

There is no right answer to this question, nor no clear line. We all have to decide where we draws the line between accommodation and self-determination.

And the line moves over time, not always for the better.

> Probably because facebook is by design a mechanism of human communication. Github is a mechanism for sharing code.

Is code not a mechanism of human communication?

Not at the same level. There are many concepts Facebook is optimized for that code is very poor at expressing. Like fear for one's life at the hands of SWAT teams spuriously called in, for example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com