privately

> privately-owned websites If GitHub used their privately-owned website to deliberately offend people, would you be defending them?

It seems like the risks of losing some of these artifacts would increase over time if they are held privately.

Sometimes people need to be able to experiment and access information privately so they can think it over without being judged.

Free speech can be defended on any number of grounds, and many of them apply equally to privately enforced speech restrictions.

I think Plurk should have stayed quiet for a few days and let Microsoft negotiate with them privately.

Would you have me email you and let us have a discussion there, privately?

You can take your repo and host it privately and say whatever you want.

That's not to say that people shouldn't be allowed to own them privately...

One can do anything they want privately if they can afford it.

But the web and the Internet are not things themselves, those are merely abstract words that describe a collection of privately owned computers doing things their owners deem in their self interest.

Github certainly has the right to control its own privately owned website.

I would not bother to censor here, I will continue just to privately think less well of this and other projects.

Asking "Would you go quietly if banned from a privately held website" doesn't suddenly mean it's a "free speech" issue.

Neither did some of the local law enforcement: "The 43-year-old man claimed that law enforcement officials, including the county jailer, told him privately that they agreed with his actions."

Could someone who thinks this is censorship please explain why Github doesn't have the right to control its own privately owned website, and how one single website monitoring the language used there is equivalent to a government "universally" (well, within its borders) coercively prohibiting all such content, such that the person in question is prevented from publishing it anywhere else, even by themselves?