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.""

Comments

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.

Re:Considering recent riots...

[Jozer99]

Callahans of the world rejoice!

Re:Considering recent riots...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Find images
2. Make t-shirts
3. Prophet

Re:Considering recent riots...

[Fred_A]

(Score:1, Funny)

Aw come on, this was pretty good.

Besides I'm eager to see what Allah has to say on the matter. I added him to my buddy list.

Re:Considering recent riots...

[Distinguished Hero]

Allow me correct that for you:

1. Find images
2. Make t-shirts
3. Suffer at the hands of those who may not agree with what you have to say, and will fight to the death to suppress your right to say it.

Note: the link is an article about someone who did Steps 1 and 2, and has reached Step 3.

reversed?

[TheUnknownOne]

I wouldn't say it's been reversed so much as removed... If it was reversed they would be requiring the string Allah in usernames, then again maybe i'm just nuts.

Re:reversed?

[TubeSteak]

Slashdot is considering requiring Allah to be appended to all User Names.

Yours will soon be: AllahTheUnknownOne
Mine will soon be: AllahsTubeSteak

Re:reversed?

[Hogwash McFly]

And this guy will become Basketballah.

Tis dope, yo.

Yahoo!'s transition to a media company

[metlin]

While I don't recall Yahoo! performing any heroic deeds in the past, I don't recall them not having a spine, either. However, latetly I've seen the do some pretty spineless things - disclosing information to the Chinese government (twice!), this etc.

Is this because of Yahoo!'s change of focus? They're trying hard to become a media company rather than a technology company.

And of course, considering the fact that someone like Terry Semel (a media executive with little to no technology experience) is leading them, such policies would not be surprising. Ever since Semel's been on board, Yahoo! has taken great pains to build a brand-name, and a lot of tech folks have been replaced by older media people, and Semel has indicated that Yahoo! would "diversify" the way Warner Brothers did.

So, that probably explains why Yahoo! is afraid to ruffle any feathers. While companies like Microsoft and Google are still technology companies at heart, Yahoo! is probably attempting to get into the media, and having bad publicity in the media industry has worse consequences than it would in the high-tech industry.

Just a thought, that's all.

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.

Re:Yahoo!'s transition to a media company

[Otter]

I'm amazed that you can still be bitter about it though.

Wow, you must be insanely well-adjusted. That barely scratches the surface of my bitterness!

Re:Yahoo!'s transition to a media company

[Entropy_ah]

I belive you just coined the phrase "blogopanic blogobutton"

Just checked google and no one else has said it. Congratulations my friend.

You can use Mohammed in your name

[winkydink]

but you can't have a pic on your profile.

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."

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: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.

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.

All I can say is...

[DemingBuiltMyHotRod]

Allah-eluiah

Re:Yeah, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...what is Google's take on this development?

I hear they are releasing Gislam beta with full text searching of the Gooran next week to try to solve yet another problem.

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.

Yahoo Advert on Slashdot

[TubeSteak]

I just made a comment in this thread, and when I hit submit, this ad popped up at the top of my page

http://a.as-us.falkag.net/dat/bgf/200506/10/hojoho jo0001aa(8).gif

Catapult Your Career
OSTG
powered by
YAHOO! hotjobs

Not sure if it's relevant, but the coincidence is worth mentioning.

Re:Reversed it?

[Otter]

No, it's a grave offense to Jews to use the name of our bread that way.

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

Re:I think I've snapped from all the loonie news

[MarkusQ]

Do you have a link to the text of Gore's speech? The transcripts I've seen don't say anything about him asking them to "come and kill us, please!" and I agree that that would be quite newsworthy if true. I can't even find any quote of him saying that we deserved 9/11. Where did you see this? And are you confident of your sources?

--MarkusQ

Re:I think I've snapped from all the loonie news

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean this speech?

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Text_of_Gore_speech_ 0116.html

Re:I think I've snapped from all the loonie news

[MarkusQ]

I would have to disagree with you on a couple of points.

refers to Abu Graib as "Bush's gulag" (that one is a quote), even though Bush had nothing to do with it and the perps who did are either on trial or in prison;

This is now known to be false; the treatment was in fact authorized (by redefining torture) and Bush has yet to recant his position. It looked for a minute as if McCain had cornered him into showing some sense, but his signing statement makes it clear that he still endorses torture. The only thing that clearly wasn't authorized (and what the Bush administration has actually objected to) is taking pictures of the torture and leaking it to the media. The "perps" who have so far been charged are (last I heard) only the low level grunts who got caught.

tell them how horrible the US is

George H. W. Bush is not the United States. Saying that GHWB is incompetent, stupid, or criminal does not say that the US is these things, anymore than saying that the US has twelve thousand miles of coastline means the GHWB is fat.

I realize that many of his supporters would like to blur this point, in effect making him a monarch, but so long as there is even a pretense of democracy here the distinction between a particular president and the nation he serves will stand.

generally makes it clear that the US is now the enemy of Arabs/Muslims, should be considered treasonous

It will be a sad day indeed when "making something clear" is treasonous. It may be fraud, if the point being made clear is untrue, but even then, not treasonous, unless you are purposing a rather radical reinterpretation of the constitution. And given that we don't know what he actually said, even the conclusion that it is untrue seems premature.

--MarkusQ

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: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.

Re:Risky business

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a likeness of Mohammad: :-)

No, no look here: @:-)

"Nuts"?

[Sr. Pato]

...then again maybe i'm just nuts.

I wouldn't say you're nuts so much as crazy... if you were nuts then I'd probably be eating you accompanied by a nice can of beer (as opposed to an angry one); then again, maybe I'm just hungry.

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.

Allah=God, hate who ??

[Bahrani]

Allah is just the Arabic word for God. Arab Christians use it to mean 'Jesus' and Arab Jews use it too, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah#Usage

Re:Risky business

[ReverendLoki]

He's being witty - its a smiley with a Danish on his head.

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 abumusabalzarqawi_iz_a_rockstar@yahoo.com? Or aymanalzawahiri_suckz@yahoo.com... abunidal@yahoo.com... 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? louislingg@yahoo.com... ravechol@yahoo.com... when does the silliness end?

Us vs. them

[commodoresloat]

yes, you hit it right on the head. That is precisely the difference between slashdot and yahoo.

"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

Calling your bluff

[MarkusQ]

Ah yes. You must be one of those people who has "conclusive proof" that the moon landing was faked. Ofcourse, yor evidence is almost non-existant, and whenever anyone challanges whatever little evidence you DO have, you simply ignore them and continue saying that your point of view "has been proven". Right?

Kind of ironic, coming from somebody that is objecting to the contents of a speech he didn't hear and can't find a transcript of, isn't it? But I'll bite.

My claim, which you are objecting to:

This is now known to be false; the treatment was in fact authorized (by redefining torture) and Bush has yet to recant his position. It looked for a minute as if McCain had cornered him into showing some sense, but his signing statement makes it clear that he still endorses torture. The only thing that clearly wasn't authorized (and what the Bush administration has actually objected to) is taking pictures of the torture and leaking it to the media. The "perps" who have so far been charged are (last I heard) only the low level grunts who got caught.

My proof (or at least a sampling thereof--there's lots more):

• The Bush administration redefined 'torture' to permit techniques such as used at Abu Grabe
• The Bush administration defends the need for torture
• The Bush administration has a system of secret prisons in which such torture is conducted
• McCain pushes to have torture outlawed
• Bush dodges with a "signing statement" saying he isn't bound by the ban
• The Bush administration primarily objects to the fact that pictures were taken
• ...and blames the leakers
• Only the low-level grunts who got caught have been nailed, and they got slaps on the wrist

There is, of course, a lot more where that came from.

Now, can you please back up your claim that Gore told the Arabs to attack us?

--MarkusQ

Re:You can use Mehammererd in your name

[Lady Jazzica]

Apparently images are forbidden to Sunni Muslims.

Are Pictures of Muhammad Really Forbidden In Islam?

There is not a single verse in the Qur'an that prohibits making or having pictures of Muhammad or people or animals or trees.

[...]

However, the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni Muslims, who regard six authorized collections of hadiths as the highest written authority in Islam after the Qur'an. The hadiths are records, often very detailed, of what Muhammad taught and did. [...]

Where multiple trustworthy hadiths agree, Sunni Muslims will take this as binding. [...]

Pictures of Muhammad are "not exactly" forbidden in the hadiths either. The hadiths do not single out Muhammad's picture. Rather, in the hadith we find the prohibition of all pictures of people or animals [...]

Several examples are listed at the link above.

Real Muhammad Emoticons

[chato]

No, no look here: @:-)

Muhammad
(((:~{>

Muhammad wearing sunglasses
(((B~{>

Muhammad as a pirate
(((P~{>

Muhammad on a bad turban day
))):~{>

Muhammad with sand in his eye
(((;~{>

Muhammad with a bomb in his turban
*-O(:~{>

Muhammad sees a Danish cartoonist
((((8~{o>

Muhammad after going quail hunting with Dick Cheney
(:(:(:((8~{>:::::::::::::

Source: Transterrestrial Musings