Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Repository response to takedown notices

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 13:03:01 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Richard Stallman's opinion is that GitHub could have chosen to stand up
>> to the Russian government.
>
> This is a rather awkward response.  Do you agree with Richard ?

Why is it awkward?

I do, because I'm deeply against such censorship.  When you're in the
situation there are certainly other considerations---I'm sure there were
many at GitHub opposed to the move to censor---but it strikes me as more
of a copout, a business decision.  I understand how it was rationalized;
I don't agree, though.

> My point is that Github's behaviour on this point is a long way from
> being clearly wrong.

"Wrong" is subjective---it was right in one sense, wrong in
another.  For the purposes of the GNU Project, rms considers it to be
wrong.

> All hosting platforms are vulnerable to legal attack of one kind or
> another.  Hosting platforms in the US are especially vulnerable to
> copyright, trademark and DMCA nonsense.  Should we reject all hosting
> platforms in the US on the grounds that they must comply with odious
> US laws on tools which allow users to reclaim their freedom by
> defeating DRM ?

No, if GitHub were approached by the US---being bound by US law---they
would have no choice.  But GitHub has no obligation to obey Russian
demands.

> In this context the actual things blocked by github are, of course,
> not software.  They are information about suicide methods (several
> cases) and political material about Crimea (one case).

Censorship of any kind is a slippery slope.  I'd imagine that if GitHub
had a policy of only hosting source code for software projects, then it
would be okay---that isn't censorship.  But clearly that isn't the case.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer
https://mikegerwitz.com
FSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature