Technology

60323 readers

3977 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

1709

The erasure of Luigi Mangione (substack.evancarroll.com)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) by dexa_scantron@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

234 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Right now, on Stack Overflow, Luigi Magione’s account has been renamed. Despite having fruitfully contributed to the network he is stripped of his name and his account is now known as “user4616250”.

This appears to violate the creative commons license under which Stack Overflow content is posted.

When the author asked about this:

As of yet, Stack Exchange has not replied to the above post, but they did promptly and within hours gave me a year-long ban for merely raising the question. Of course, they did draft a letter which credited the action to other events that occurred weeks before where I merely upvoted contributions from Luigi and bountied a few of his questions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 86 points 12 hours ago (4 children)

As of yet, Stack Exchange has not replied to the above post, but they did promptly and within hours gave me a year-long ban for merely raising the question.

Laws mean nothing anymore. Therefore licenses mean nothing. Therefore ownership means nothing, and "theft" no longer exists.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 25 points 10 hours ago

Therefore ownership means nothing, and “theft” no longer exists.

WOAH WOAH WOAH... hold on there Circuitfarmer (checks clipboard) It says here you're not nearly affluent enough to circumvent the law... we'll be keeping a close eye on you... --BB

[–] caboose2006@lemm.ee 11 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I managed to convince my brother in law by using the wrongful death case of Kanokporn Tangsuan as an example. Framed it as his moral responsibility to never sign up for any digital media ever again since he has a family. I pointed him to a few resources to sail the high seas and he's got his high seas pc hooked up to his TV and cancelled all his subscriptions. I'm so proud.

[–] ZeffSyde@lemmy.world 12 points 11 hours ago

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

[+] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -39 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Jfc y'all sound like magats

There is no law forcing a company to spread your message for you.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 7 hours ago

They agreed to terms when they operated under Creative Commons.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

In my experience it’s usually the magats who are the ones defending asshole and/or immoral behavior by pointing out that the offender is acting within the bounds of the law or within their legal rights.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago

Idk, I feel like Luigi Mangione being a phrase not allowed on Stack Overflow just makes sense. Good policy.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 27 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

There is when Stack is using a creative commons license.

[+] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -31 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

No there isn't.

Stack Overflow is privately owned by Prosus. You have certain limited rights to the content they host but they do not have the obligation to keep the content up and they even have user terms that every account agrees to: especially for moderation.

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 41 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

If they'd just removed his content outright, I would agree with you. But if they've left his content up without attribution, that does violate the CC agreement, of which they are upheld by.

I mean, it's still a small copyright violation whom the proprietor of is a bit preoccupied to do anything about, so uh...this whole thing is quite dumb.