A private company choosing not to allow content for whatever reason is not censorship. People who choose to use the word "retard" are not a protected class, Github can ban this word as they see fit.
I mean, that doesn't make it "evil", but a lot of people might say that censorship of any sort is a bit of a grey area. That whole "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" thing.
When it comes down to it, no one would really do this.
To be clear, I'm not saying that Github censoring "retarded" is a human rights issue, but as long as we've gone off the rails let's see where the train comes to a stop.
A progressive making that claim would never take a bullet so that someone could fly the Confederate flag, for example. It's just not going to happen.
They may fight to defend the 1st Amendment, but that's easy because it's a proxy behind which exists all the specific instances of speech they would find horrible along with the speech they hold dear.
People making the claim probably mean the latter, but the wording implies something more specific, presumably for effect.
Charlie Hebdo did not publish, then get attacked for, content they themselves found offensive.
Then they didn't die to protect speech they were offended by. I don't know how much clearer this can be.
What?
Let's see if anyone jumps to defend you...
This. Is. Censorship.
It's not in any way a debatable point.
The dynamic that's going on here is that people want to endorse censorship while avoiding using that word.
You are ever correct that GitHub can ban the word if they want. They're fully within their legal right to do so.
This is a definition of censorship that removes any useful descriptive meaning from the word. It's not censorship when I refuse to listen to offensive things or refuse to repeat them to others or allow you to graffiti it on the side of my house. Similarly, it's not censorship when a private company declines to let you use its private resources to say whatever you want.
The difference between these types of "censorship" and scary, actual government censorship is that GitHub doesn't have the authority to hold a gun to your head and compel you to be quiet. You can take your repo and host it privately and say whatever you want. Comedy Central didn't have the authority to compel Trey Parker and Matt Stone to be quiet. Parker and Stone could have terminated their contracts and posted a Mohammed cartoon through some other channel.
You rob censorship of its depth of meaning -- compulsory silencing by force -- when you apply it to private actors choosing not to use their private resources to promote others' speech.
I could defend my stance. I think you're probably smart and probably know almost everything I'd say. If that's the case then we're resigned to agree to disagree.
Then they're going to have a busy night.
Doesn't make it bad, necessarily, but it is censorship.
The argument is it isn't suppression because as a private company, people can still choose to engage in that speech elsewhere. The government can actually make laws to stop people from saying certain things in any context.
When a private company does it, they can only do it in the medium they control and for people who choose to use that medium.
"Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship"
It's simply incorrect to say that private companies cannot engage in censorship.
Most comments and up/down votes are about what people like/dislike not about what's either right, interesting or insightful.
It is what it is, and the mods couldn't care less.
If they have enough control over a medium to effectively suppress speech, then yes. The argument is whether that is the case here. The definition of censorship is not merely "any case where someone prevents someone from saying something". The bar is higher than that.
And people can discuss whether that is or is not appropriate as they see fit. If enough people feel differently, that's when alternative services start to appear.
I think toehead2000 was asking how that squares with a bakery not being allowed to operate their business under certain other terms.