Yahoo Reverses Allah Ban

damnal writes "Yahoo's ban on "Allah" in users names, has been reversed. The ban was instituted due to a number of people registering for IDs using specific terms with the sole purpose of promoting hate. Yahoo's comment on the reversal: "We recently re-evaluated the term 'Allah,' and users can now register for IDs with this word because it is no longer a significant target for abuse.""

Considering recent riots...

[StarkinProgram]

Considering the fact there were problems over a caricature of a Prophet, I'm amazed it's taken them this long to reverse it. Well, at least it was Yahoo and not Google.

You might want to take that back

[eclectro]

and users can now register for IDs with this word because it is no longer a significant target for abuse.

Now that it has hit the front page of slashdot, it is once again the target for abuse.

Promoting Hate

[nurb432]

Hey, its my right to choose who i like or dislike..

What a bunch of dorks

[pclminion]

They don't have the balls to just come out and say "Yes, we banned Allah because we were afraid of terrorists blowing up our office." This line about the word being used abusively is a load of horse shit. Last I checked Jesus Christ was not a banned term. And we all know that "Jesus Christ" is never used as an expletive or in an offensive way. Whatever.

Now they've realized the idiocy of what they did, and again, rather than admit "Wow, we didn't realize how many words contain the letters 'allah'" they put out some garbage about how "Allah is no longer being used abusively on our sites."

Huh?

[thegrassyknowl]

We recently re-evaluated the term

Looks to me like a typical management-induced knee jerk reaction to a minor problem and the subsequent FUD to try and hide the fact that management were in error.

This still leaves Osama...

[Bananatree3]

"Osama" and "bidladen" are still banned from usernames. Their explination as trying to qwell "hate crimes" seems very onesided, as they still allow usernames like "Hitlerhatesjews". I don't see why they think only hate crimes happen with Muslims. I mean anti-semitism is still as much a hate crime as any other.

Re:Yahoo!'s transition to a media company

[Otter]

I agree on the China end, but the Allah thing seems to have been a stopgap measure put in to block some idiot and reversed once he got bored and went away. No one would have noticed it if some blogger hadn't picked that brief interval to try to register some *allah* name, flipped out and hit the blogopanic blogobutton.

Given that Slashcode is full of features designed to thwart some specific jackass who hasn't been here in five years, at least Yahoo deserves credit for cleaning this up afterwards.

I think I've snapped from all the loonie news

[MarkusQ]

Yahoo Reverses Allah Ban

I think I've finally snapped from all the loonie news lately. My first thought was: "What!? Now you are required to have 'Allah' in your name? That's even worse!"

--MarkusQ

And before you give me grief, in just the last few weeks:

• Hundreds of people have killed each other over a bunch of cartoons.
• The vice president of the US shot someone
• Bell South wants to charge Google for using its bandwidth when Bell South's customers use Google's services for free and already pay Bell South for the privilege.
• We are engaged in a huge debate, not over the fact that the control of our nation's ports has been turned over to foreign governments in the first place, but rather over the fact that it may be racist to suggest that a nation that funded Bin Ladin, passed sensitive information to him, had top level meetings with him, recognized the Taliban, and was home to two of the 9/11 hijackers might not be trustworthy
• People have been caught distributing free software in accordance with the license, and had their CDs seized to protect the rights of the Authors who gave them permission in the first place

Well, NOW it is.

[rdmiller3]

"We recently re-evaluated the term 'Allah,' and users can now register for IDs with this word because it is no longer a significant target for abuse."

Well, now it probably is.

Leave it to Slashdot to fan the insignificant into flaming stupidity.

Re:What a bunch of dorks

[deacon]

Yes.

Now all this thread needs is some hoser to chime in with "Cue the Islamophobics and Muslim Haters" as a transparent attempt to shut down valid debate or criticism, (in the same way that "RACIST!!" is used on campus to shut up those who would dare to question the dominant orthodoxy) and this thread will be complete.

Interesting how the vast majority of the MSM has voided their flaccid bowels rather than actually publishing the cartoons, leaving the only source of, you know, actual relevant information, to publications by bloggers.

Re:Well, NOW it is.

[un1xl0ser]

What they should have done is say that it will be able to be used sometime in the next two months. By then, maybe some people would have forgotten about it.

Look at my screen name

[Jesus IS the Devil]

That's the difference between us and them. In our society, we can protest all we want, but in the end we're still civilized about it.

With them, you post a cartoon and next thing you know all hell breaks lose and there's a bounty on your life.

I'd just like to say...

[redalien]

I'm disgusted by some of the responses I've read to this story. Grow up.

Re:This still leaves Osama... silliness

[commodoresloat]

Are they gonna keep banning terrorist nicknames? Osama is sometimes called Abu Abdullah; should that name be banned too? How about [e-mail]? Or [e-mail]... [e-mail]... somebody quick register SeifAlAdl@yahoo before it gets banned too. When they run out of Islamist terrorists will they move on to banning bomb-hurling anarchist nicknames? [e-mail]... [e-mail]... when does the silliness end?

"promoting hatred" -- usually that's not the case

[timothy]

"Hate" is a strong word.

There are people who want to "promote hatred" in the world, no doubt. The organizers of the KKK (especially present-day ones; the originals might get at least some product-of-their-times credit), recruiters for angry, retributionist separatists of any stripe, etc, qualify as intending to promote hatred. But that's a pretty harsh and specific charge, and not everyone will qualify (to our great benefit).

A lot of other people though, no matter how repugnant their views might be to you or me, have no interest in spreading emnity, even if you think their views are offensive, insenstive, chauvenistic, etc; not all negative opinions are *hatred* -- not even mocking or otherwise depracting opinions. Some rivalries are genuine but often friendly, and are the basis of a paradoxical bond based on a continuing series of mutual competition (Aussies / New Zealanders); some are primarily political -- or socio-political / social-religio-political / whatever (like Greek v. Cypriot student groups on U.S. campuses arguing the proper government of Cyprus), where opinions are strong, contentious and incompatible, but not necessarily resulting in the personal emotion of hatred; some are true, real-deal group HATRED. And of course, there are the various "pride" groups representing skin tones light or dark, some of which seem outward-directed ("we don't like *them*!") and some more inward-directed ("We like *us*!), and into which some people read hatred just in their existence, even if roundly denied.

It's especially hard to evaluate intent when all you've got to go on is something as ambiguous as an email address, chosen often on the spur of the moment and for reasons that could include memorability, humor (which might be obscure or contrarian), uniqueness (jsmith876548 is no fun), obscurity (so as to provide a useful gap between online and real-life names), which way the wind is blowing, etc.

Some email addresses might also be taken by other than the "side" that a glance might suggest, too -- in the same way that some web sites with names that sound like those of outwardly, frankly racist groups are instead parked by folks who'd rather sit on them or redirect to anti-racist sites instead.

Anyhow -- back to procrastinating!

timothy

Re:What a bunch of dorks

[Distinguished Hero]

If a gay man molests a little boy would you say "So how's anyone going to tell us that homosexuals aren't sexual predators?" If an African American commits a crime would you say "So how's anyone going to tell us that African Americans aren't a bunch of criminals?"
And if a member of the KKK kills a "black" man would you say "So how's anyone going to tell us that the KKK don't hate black people?"
Islam is not a race, or a sexual preference. Islam is an ideology, and deserves to be scrutinized as such.
Furthermore, the statement "Islam is a religion of peace." is a hypothesis, and deserves to be treated as such. At the moment, the experimental evidence (including the Quran) seems to contradict that hypothesis.