[JumpCrisscross]

> basically an argument of "I want things to stay the same because I'm old" or "I like to use jargon because it makes me look smarter and makes sure newbies have a harder time"

It’s everyone I need to communicate this to already understands what those terms mean.

Also, white and blacklisting isn’t technical jargon. It’s used across industries, by people day to day and in common media. Allow/deny listing would be jargon, because nobody outside a small circle uses it and thus unambiguously understands what it means.

[throwaway290]

It's technical jargon in different industries, but it's still jargon, ie. words NOT self explanatory by their normal definitions in mainstream use. Other examples of such terms: "variable", "class"

For the same reason, "allow-list" list is not jargon, just like "component" or "extension"

To me there is one issue only: two syllables vs one (not a problem with block vs black for example but a problem with allow vs white) and that's about it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> "allow-list" list is not jargon

Of course it is. If I tell someone to allow list a group of people for an event, that requires further explanation. It’s not self explanatory because it’s non-standard.

> just like "component" or "extension"

If you use them the way they are commonly used, yes. If you repurpose them into a neologism, no. (Most non-acronym jargon involves repurposing common words for a specific context. Glass cockpit. Repo. Server.)

[throwaway290]

If you tell your friend to put somebody on an allow-list and that requires further explanation, I think the problem is not the term but your friend, sorry...

Server, cockpit those are jargon. Allow and deny just aren't. Whatever.