Hacker News Reader

Comment by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC | Hacker News Reader

And even if it were (a list of vulnerable systems, that is), why the fuck do they think that they should censor serious journalism? If you operate a public venue, then it is an important societal role of journalism to report on it if that public venue poses a risk to the public, whether that might also have negative consequences for the people operating it is completely irrelevant.

View on HN

You mistook "free and accessible" with "public".

You may exercise freedom of speech but not on server that belongs to a private company - it is their right to limit what kind of content they like.

But in an essence you are right - companies should exist to benefit society, but it is not how it exactly works right now.

I really hate this trend of journalism leaking into services like Github. We have secure ways to share files with high redundancy, why put a service like Github/Gitlab in the line of fire when their primary goal is to enable open collaboration, vs open information.

What services are you referring to please?

Torrents are what in mind really, low barrier of entry for viewing, and someone in an oppressed state who can get arround a website block can probably get the torrent anonymously. To me not being easy to edit is an upside, additional data should require the initial trusted party to share a new magnet

Make a torrent?

Can't be easily updated

http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0046.html http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0039.html

How about IPFS?

Is there support for managing multiple IPNS addresses with a single node yet?

Are they in the business of journalism?

Lots of people are saying "But the sites are already exploited" ... they are probably still exploitable further also, and GH/GL don't want to be at that party.

Would they be required to publish this story if they "were in the business of journalism"?

This is not about whether they are legally required to do anything, but whether what they are doing is responsible behavior.

No, they would not be required - they are a private business and set their own terms.

As for being responsible - that is their motivation.

Should I assume that now you have access to this list that you will be contacting the site owners to notify them their sites are infected & exploitable? Would that be responsible on your part?

There is a right of free speech in many countries (I assume you are in one of them), but that right does not force anyone else to distribute or publish your speech.

Their servers, and their decision on what data is on them.

Want to make it available for every to read? Run your own server and host it there.

tl;dr - you have the right to say what you want, but you cant force anyone to listen.

And that's why no one is talking about forcing GitHub and Gitlab to do anything. They're merely complaining. Just because someone complains about something doesn't mean they think it is illegal or ought to be illegal.

Yes, but one by one the word "censorship" loses it's meaning. It used to mean preventing people from publishing their work. Now all it means is disagreeing about what should get shown prominently on social networks.

Anyone suppressing a work based on ethical judgments is practicing censorship. They could be acting on the authority of a state or religious institution, they could be removing immodest young adult fiction from the shelves at a children's library, or they could be moderating the content of a web site. Web sites are new, but the concept is the same as it's always been.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com