return2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agoMAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairsgizmodo.comexternal-linkmessage-square156fedilinkarrow-up1757arrow-down17
arrow-up1750arrow-down1external-linkMAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairsgizmodo.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square156fedilink
minus-squarehumanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.sulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·edit-28 hours agoYeah, no. It’s still censorship even if the person in question wants it to be censored. People shouldn’t get to dictate whether or not wikipedia articles are made of them.
minus-squareCommunist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·7 hours agoIf I made a wikipedia page showing your social security and banking information would your stance hold true?
minus-squarehumanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.sulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·7 hours agoWikipedia already doesn’t allow that, so your question is pointless.
minus-squareCommunist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-24 hours agofor the same reason they don’t give resources to blatant harassment campaigns. both are against the rules and both are censorship for nearly identical reasons
minus-squarehumanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.sulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·3 hours agoYou’re moving goalposts, but ok.
minus-squareCommunist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-22 hours agoMy point was that censorship is valid when it is to prevent harming individuals/fraud/bullying my goalpost did not move at all. you are being a hypocrite by saying it was okay not to have that on wikipedia because it was already banned you should oppose that ban on the basis of censorship, no?
Yeah, no.
It’s still censorship even if the person in question wants it to be censored.
People shouldn’t get to dictate whether or not wikipedia articles are made of them.
If I made a wikipedia page showing your social security and banking information would your stance hold true?
Wikipedia already doesn’t allow that, so your question is pointless.
for the same reason they don’t give resources to blatant harassment campaigns.
both are against the rules and both are censorship for nearly identical reasons
You’re moving goalposts, but ok.
My point was that censorship is valid when it is to prevent harming individuals/fraud/bullying
my goalpost did not move at all.
you are being a hypocrite by saying it was okay not to have that on wikipedia because it was already banned
you should oppose that ban on the basis of censorship, no?