this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
24 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

61102 readers
6766 users here now

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

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
24
The erasure of Luigi Mangione (substack.evancarroll.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by dexa_scantron@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
84 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
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

should not justify violating the Creative Commons License

Absolutely. Even a guilty verdict shouldn't justify violating the Creative Commons License. It should either be completely taken down/hidden, or left in-tact.

That's not at all what I'm saying though though, I'm saying that it's reasonable for the site to take action to hide the account. He's a public figure with an apparent confession, which is going to attract a lot of attention to that account that otherwise wouldn't be there. They shouldn't have done it this way since it violates the Creative Commons License, but I am saying that action to hide/disable the account is warranted.