5 ms·

Banned Words List

structuredPizza 1mo ago
I posted this yesterday, it was flagged. Today, I am posting it again because I believe the HN readers will benefit from it. Why? The majority of HN readers work in IT or adjacent information fields; we communicate information with strings aka words.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- donohoe 1mo ago
  It has been flagged again after being #1 on frontpage.
- torstenvl 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - fmbb 1mo ago
    There is not simply one government in the US. It seems the federal executive admin is censoring government websites of all levels and branches of government.
  - Pulcinella 1mo ago
    the mention of which can now result in research grants or other agreements with the federal government getting nixed. That sounds like censorship to me.
    - torstenvl 1mo ago
      [flagged]
      - Pulcinella 1mo ago
        No it's the government deciding what you are and are not allowed to say in your grant.
        torstenvl 1mo ago
        That string of words is nonsensical. Literally nothing in the OP is talking about "your grant." If you want to start your own grant, either personally or through a foundation you start, nothing in the OP pertains to you. The OP is only about whether the government will endorse speech contained in your application for a government grant, which—again—is categorically different from what you said and fundamentally not censorship.
  - loeg 1mo ago
    Also, it's just clearly not true, even for the government? For example, here is the CDC mentioning Opioids, which are ostensibly "banned:" https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/about/understanding-the-opioid-overdose-epidemic.html https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/about/understanding-... . Similarly, "female:" https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/451-500/db491-fig1.png https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/451-500/db491-fig... Many of the rest are clearly editorial or phrasing preferences (e.g., "Latinx" in place of "Latino/a"), which are reasonable to have; I'm sure any mainstream publication like the NYT also has its own preferred language and style guidelines.
    - torstenvl 1mo ago
      True. And a lot of examples from the previous administration, for example, where you weren't allowed to say "gay" or "equality" or "equal opportunity."
  - jaybrendansmith 1mo ago
    Yes, it definitely is censorship, because scientists employed by the government may not report findings, existing government information is being erased, and the public cannot access it. So studies about racial concerns are cancelled, programs measuring the rate of climate change are being cancelled and the data and even the data collecting instrumentation is destroyed. This list of banned words is just one aspect of the censorship ... taken as a whole, this is an unconstitutional censorship of data that has public health and public safety implications. Does it qualify as Hacker News? Well, does Hacker News even exist when we no longer have access to critical data? Is that not topical? And does this kind of post suddenly become relevant when the government starts censoring the website directly? And how would we know when that starts to happen? Are you going to magically send us all letters in the mail? Or will you just silently acquiesce?
    - torstenvl 1mo ago
      [flagged]
      - jaybrendansmith 1mo ago
        And that is flat ignorance of all the other context of destruction of data going on right now. Ignoring that research data is being maintained by private citizens to protect it doesn't support your point. Censorship of government websites is just a small piece of this, ignoring it doesn't help anyone but a rank partisan, which you clearly are.
        torstenvl 1mo ago
        [flagged]
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1mo ago
        Your refusal to look up "censor" in a dictionary doesn't make you right. Some people are actually trying to have a reasoned discussion about the downsides of what the administration is doing, in particular the censorship, which is the problem with articles like this being flagged, especially when it's justified with partisan hyperbole such as what can be found in your comments here.
  - nhinck2 1mo ago
    Surely you are not so stupid to misunderstand and ignore the chilling effects of this?
  - ModernMech 1mo ago
    Even still, this list is passed around at my university where researchers are censoring their proposals to not include these words. That's called a chilling effect, and it's against the ideals of free speech.
    - torstenvl 1mo ago
      This is a decent point but still falls flat for now. Their proposals are just that: proposals for government-funded speech. That said, it's plausible it could have a chilling effect on their independent research, which is of concern.
      - ModernMech 1mo ago
        > proposals for government-funded speech No, these are public proposals for public money to do public research. There shouldn't be restrictions on want can be funded based on the President's own personal morality. This isn't the "government's" money or Republican money or the Trump administration's money; it's our money, allocated for research that American public decided that scientists and academic institutions, who by dedicating their life to these pursuits and demonstrating excellence in the process, earned the right to conduct. Although the executive branch has the power, they do not have the mandate to impose its own morality on the entire country, that's what Congress is for. I'm not saying every proposal deserves to be funded, but I'm saying proposals should not be denied funding on the basis of capricious, political, partisan, myopic moral crusades. > That said, it's plausible it could have a chilling effect on their independent research, which is of concern. This is more than plausible, it's actually happening at my workplace at least. Very anti free-speech for a party that said they were pro free-speech.
      - estearum 1mo ago
        What? The government has been quite openly going around pulling unrelated funding and launching investigations into educational institutions for similar reasons.
  - RobRivera 1mo ago
    A government by the people. Of the people. For the people. That is a fundamental aspect of the American political foundation that the Revolutionary war was waged over.
- layer8 1mo ago
  Falsehoods programmers believe about strings: All strings are words. More seriously: While I find the topic appropriate for HN, connecting the topicality to the use of strings in IT is weird. If the ban only applied to audio or sign language, the topic wouldn’t be any less appropriate.
vardump 1mo ago
Can that list be real? If so, it's absolutely crazy. A lot of very common words are blocked.
- nhinck3 1mo ago
  ~200 of the 350 come from a suit brought against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The rest are probably true in a sense but not written down like those are.
- donohoe 1mo ago
  Yes. The page cites numerous sources. It may vary by agency. Example: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/07/us/trump-federal-agencies-websites-words-dei.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/07/us/trump-fede...
arionhardison 1mo ago
"Black"? Being a black man I am more interested in the context in which this list is applied and hope just the list/words in the abstract are not being simply used as rage bait. Edit: I no longer think me being a black male is relevant in this context because after looking further into the list it basically covers multiple terms that apply to everyone; thus I think context of application is even more important and the list in itself is fairly irrelevant.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- sandworm101 1mo ago
  In the context of "anti-woke" ideology. Many people currently in power believe that if we do not talk about race, by literally not using the words, that longstanding societal issues will simply disappear. Same too with many scientific principals. In power or not, these people are idiots.
  - arionhardison 1mo ago
    Agreed, but I and obviously you are not and we do not have to pretend to be by becoming enraged at their idiotic behavior if it has no material impact. Secondly, I do not agree that they think issues will "disappear"; I believe that they simply think this gives them license to impose their will on the groups that identify with said banned terms.
    - caminante 1mo ago
      "anti-woke" is also an unhelpful label, given top Dems (who were pushing woke 1.0) are now re-branding to woke 2.0.
    - sandworm101 1mo ago
      Imposing one's will upon other people is the primary driver of modern politics. Live and let live is gone.
    - 1mo ago
kdavis 1mo ago
For context on PEN America, from Wikipedia[1] > PEN America (formerly PEN American Center), founded in 1922, and headquartered in New York City, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization > whose goal is to raise awareness for the protection of free expression in the United States and worldwide through the advancement of > literature and human rights. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEN_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEN_America
- jagged-chisel 1mo ago
  While laudable, first amendment protections don’t apply to government institutions.
  - caminante 1mo ago
    Their CEO was in the Obama admin, and they didn't really press Biden/Obama to the same extent with high profile advocacy on whistleblowers, Assange, Espionage Act, etc. This is a left wing think tank. Edit: article flagged presumably for bias.
  - kdavis 1mo ago
    It has reached beyond government institutions. From the linked article: "These policies’ tentacles already extend beyond government websites... Reports say scientists are self-censoring in hopes of improving their chances of getting government grants." In regards to government institutions, limiting speech in this way will cause people to die. For example, banning the phrase "air pollution" will curtail efforts to address air pollution, e.g. scientists not submitting research proposals addressing air pollution, causing people to die as a result[1]. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/climate-health/php/effects/air-pollution.html https://www.cdc.gov/climate-health/php/effects/air-pollution...
theChris-in 1mo ago
I don't understand. Is "woman" not allowed to appear in any govt. website? What??
- jszymborski 1mo ago
  I think they'd prefer it replaced with female in every and all cases :(
  - theChris-in 1mo ago
    I think our priorities are so effed right now smh
  - linsomniac 1mo ago
    female is also on that list...
    - fmajid 1mo ago
      The approved term is “Axlotl tank”
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
- loeg 1mo ago
  It clearly can.
- estearum 1mo ago
  [dead]
julianlam 1mo ago
Sounds like the Republican party would really support the adoption Newspeak. > It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.
- butz 1mo ago
  This is ungood.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
cynicalsecurity 1mo ago
[flagged]
- nhinck3 1mo ago
  Yup, that's exactly what was happening. You don't need to think about it anymore, just crawl back into the hole, cover yourself with that nice big rock.
mproud 1mo ago
America 250
arjie 1mo ago
Diesel, Ethanol, Pyrolysis? Haha, odd. I know this is supposed to be “not allowed in government documents” and so on but I think it would be useful to have a list of “words that are not permitted to be used in the US”. It could be a convenience list that one could refer to to ensure that they’re not about to say a banned word. E.g. obviously the n word and r word are on it, but is homeless on it? Gay? A single source of truth to know what you’re not allowed to say would be good.
markx2 1mo ago
Years ago I worked inside Akismet - https://akismet.com https://akismet.com - which is an Automattic product. Akismet, along with user chosen comment moderated lists in 'Comments > Discussion' would not publish certain comment content. For example, you put 'bad' in to your moderation list and if someone wrote 'badger' your comment was moderated, and probably deleted. Various sites had "Copy this Bad Words List" There was/is a medication called cialis Lots of spam - email, web, comment, used those 6 letters There was a HUGE amount of comments caught that used socialist, socialism in the US elections.
nojvek 1mo ago
“At risk” is censored. That’s wild. How are we supposed to have a serious conversation about risk then?

I posted this yesterday, it was flagged. Today, I am posting it again because I believe the HN readers will benefit from it. Why? The majority of HN readers work in IT or adjacent information fields; we communicate information with strings aka words.

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
donohoe 1mo ago
It has been flagged again after being #1 on frontpage.
torstenvl 1mo ago
[flagged]
- fmbb 1mo ago
  There is not simply one government in the US. It seems the federal executive admin is censoring government websites of all levels and branches of government.
- Pulcinella 1mo ago
  the mention of which can now result in research grants or other agreements with the federal government getting nixed. That sounds like censorship to me.
  - torstenvl 1mo ago
    [flagged]
    - Pulcinella 1mo ago
      No it's the government deciding what you are and are not allowed to say in your grant.
      - torstenvl 1mo ago
        That string of words is nonsensical. Literally nothing in the OP is talking about "your grant." If you want to start your own grant, either personally or through a foundation you start, nothing in the OP pertains to you. The OP is only about whether the government will endorse speech contained in your application for a government grant, which—again—is categorically different from what you said and fundamentally not censorship.
- loeg 1mo ago
  Also, it's just clearly not true, even for the government? For example, here is the CDC mentioning Opioids, which are ostensibly "banned:" https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/about/understanding-the-opioid-overdose-epidemic.html https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/about/understanding-... . Similarly, "female:" https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/451-500/db491-fig1.png https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/451-500/db491-fig... Many of the rest are clearly editorial or phrasing preferences (e.g., "Latinx" in place of "Latino/a"), which are reasonable to have; I'm sure any mainstream publication like the NYT also has its own preferred language and style guidelines.
  - torstenvl 1mo ago
    True. And a lot of examples from the previous administration, for example, where you weren't allowed to say "gay" or "equality" or "equal opportunity."
- jaybrendansmith 1mo ago
  Yes, it definitely is censorship, because scientists employed by the government may not report findings, existing government information is being erased, and the public cannot access it. So studies about racial concerns are cancelled, programs measuring the rate of climate change are being cancelled and the data and even the data collecting instrumentation is destroyed. This list of banned words is just one aspect of the censorship ... taken as a whole, this is an unconstitutional censorship of data that has public health and public safety implications. Does it qualify as Hacker News? Well, does Hacker News even exist when we no longer have access to critical data? Is that not topical? And does this kind of post suddenly become relevant when the government starts censoring the website directly? And how would we know when that starts to happen? Are you going to magically send us all letters in the mail? Or will you just silently acquiesce?
  - torstenvl 1mo ago
    [flagged]
    - jaybrendansmith 1mo ago
      And that is flat ignorance of all the other context of destruction of data going on right now. Ignoring that research data is being maintained by private citizens to protect it doesn't support your point. Censorship of government websites is just a small piece of this, ignoring it doesn't help anyone but a rank partisan, which you clearly are.
      - torstenvl 1mo ago
        [flagged]
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1mo ago
        Your refusal to look up "censor" in a dictionary doesn't make you right. Some people are actually trying to have a reasoned discussion about the downsides of what the administration is doing, in particular the censorship, which is the problem with articles like this being flagged, especially when it's justified with partisan hyperbole such as what can be found in your comments here.
- nhinck2 1mo ago
  Surely you are not so stupid to misunderstand and ignore the chilling effects of this?
- ModernMech 1mo ago
  Even still, this list is passed around at my university where researchers are censoring their proposals to not include these words. That's called a chilling effect, and it's against the ideals of free speech.
  - torstenvl 1mo ago
    This is a decent point but still falls flat for now. Their proposals are just that: proposals for government-funded speech. That said, it's plausible it could have a chilling effect on their independent research, which is of concern.
    - ModernMech 1mo ago
      > proposals for government-funded speech No, these are public proposals for public money to do public research. There shouldn't be restrictions on want can be funded based on the President's own personal morality. This isn't the "government's" money or Republican money or the Trump administration's money; it's our money, allocated for research that American public decided that scientists and academic institutions, who by dedicating their life to these pursuits and demonstrating excellence in the process, earned the right to conduct. Although the executive branch has the power, they do not have the mandate to impose its own morality on the entire country, that's what Congress is for. I'm not saying every proposal deserves to be funded, but I'm saying proposals should not be denied funding on the basis of capricious, political, partisan, myopic moral crusades. > That said, it's plausible it could have a chilling effect on their independent research, which is of concern. This is more than plausible, it's actually happening at my workplace at least. Very anti free-speech for a party that said they were pro free-speech.
    - estearum 1mo ago
      What? The government has been quite openly going around pulling unrelated funding and launching investigations into educational institutions for similar reasons.
- RobRivera 1mo ago
  A government by the people. Of the people. For the people. That is a fundamental aspect of the American political foundation that the Revolutionary war was waged over.
layer8 1mo ago
Falsehoods programmers believe about strings: All strings are words. More seriously: While I find the topic appropriate for HN, connecting the topicality to the use of strings in IT is weird. If the ban only applied to audio or sign language, the topic wouldn’t be any less appropriate.

vardump 1mo ago

Can that list be real? If so, it's absolutely crazy. A lot of very common words are blocked.

nhinck3 1mo ago
~200 of the 350 come from a suit brought against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The rest are probably true in a sense but not written down like those are.
donohoe 1mo ago
Yes. The page cites numerous sources. It may vary by agency. Example: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/07/us/trump-federal-agencies-websites-words-dei.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/07/us/trump-fede...

arionhardison 1mo ago

"Black"? Being a black man I am more interested in the context in which this list is applied and hope just the list/words in the abstract are not being simply used as rage bait. Edit: I no longer think me being a black male is relevant in this context because after looking further into the list it basically covers multiple terms that apply to everyone; thus I think context of application is even more important and the list in itself is fairly irrelevant.

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
sandworm101 1mo ago
In the context of "anti-woke" ideology. Many people currently in power believe that if we do not talk about race, by literally not using the words, that longstanding societal issues will simply disappear. Same too with many scientific principals. In power or not, these people are idiots.
- arionhardison 1mo ago
  Agreed, but I and obviously you are not and we do not have to pretend to be by becoming enraged at their idiotic behavior if it has no material impact. Secondly, I do not agree that they think issues will "disappear"; I believe that they simply think this gives them license to impose their will on the groups that identify with said banned terms.
  - caminante 1mo ago
    "anti-woke" is also an unhelpful label, given top Dems (who were pushing woke 1.0) are now re-branding to woke 2.0.
  - sandworm101 1mo ago
    Imposing one's will upon other people is the primary driver of modern politics. Live and let live is gone.
  - 1mo ago

kdavis 1mo ago

For context on PEN America, from Wikipedia[1] > PEN America (formerly PEN American Center), founded in 1922, and headquartered in New York City, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization > whose goal is to raise awareness for the protection of free expression in the United States and worldwide through the advancement of > literature and human rights. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEN_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEN_America

jagged-chisel 1mo ago
While laudable, first amendment protections don’t apply to government institutions.
- caminante 1mo ago
  Their CEO was in the Obama admin, and they didn't really press Biden/Obama to the same extent with high profile advocacy on whistleblowers, Assange, Espionage Act, etc. This is a left wing think tank. Edit: article flagged presumably for bias.
- kdavis 1mo ago
  It has reached beyond government institutions. From the linked article: "These policies’ tentacles already extend beyond government websites... Reports say scientists are self-censoring in hopes of improving their chances of getting government grants." In regards to government institutions, limiting speech in this way will cause people to die. For example, banning the phrase "air pollution" will curtail efforts to address air pollution, e.g. scientists not submitting research proposals addressing air pollution, causing people to die as a result[1]. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/climate-health/php/effects/air-pollution.html https://www.cdc.gov/climate-health/php/effects/air-pollution...

theChris-in 1mo ago

I don't understand. Is "woman" not allowed to appear in any govt. website? What??

jszymborski 1mo ago
I think they'd prefer it replaced with female in every and all cases :(
- theChris-in 1mo ago
  I think our priorities are so effed right now smh
- linsomniac 1mo ago
  female is also on that list...
  - fmajid 1mo ago
    The approved term is “Axlotl tank”
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
loeg 1mo ago
It clearly can.
estearum 1mo ago
[dead]

julianlam 1mo ago

Sounds like the Republican party would really support the adoption Newspeak. > It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.

butz 1mo ago
This is ungood.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

cynicalsecurity 1mo ago

[flagged]

nhinck3 1mo ago
Yup, that's exactly what was happening. You don't need to think about it anymore, just crawl back into the hole, cover yourself with that nice big rock.

mproud 1mo ago

America 250

arjie 1mo ago

Diesel, Ethanol, Pyrolysis? Haha, odd. I know this is supposed to be “not allowed in government documents” and so on but I think it would be useful to have a list of “words that are not permitted to be used in the US”. It could be a convenience list that one could refer to to ensure that they’re not about to say a banned word. E.g. obviously the n word and r word are on it, but is homeless on it? Gay? A single source of truth to know what you’re not allowed to say would be good.

markx2 1mo ago

Years ago I worked inside Akismet - https://akismet.com https://akismet.com - which is an Automattic product. Akismet, along with user chosen comment moderated lists in 'Comments > Discussion' would not publish certain comment content. For example, you put 'bad' in to your moderation list and if someone wrote 'badger' your comment was moderated, and probably deleted. Various sites had "Copy this Bad Words List" There was/is a medication called cialis Lots of spam - email, web, comment, used those 6 letters There was a HUGE amount of comments caught that used socialist, socialism in the US elections.

nojvek 1mo ago

“At risk” is censored. That’s wild. How are we supposed to have a serious conversation about risk then?