The saga on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange, and how tech always serves the ruling class.

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.

  • WhatYouNeed@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    9 days ago

    By this logic, everyone charged (not convicted, just charged) should have their accounts and submissions changed in the same manner as Luigi’s.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      8 days ago

      Man I sure wish this’d mean all Trump-generated content and speeches got deleted. That’d be genuinely helpful to the world at least…

      • SolaceFiend@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        8 days ago

        The presumption or admission of guilt does not and should not justify violating the Creative Commons License, nor perpetrating any illegal behavior agains any individual(s).

        If JK Rowling went out and robbed a bank, or murdered an ex-Husband, in no world or timeline would that give a member of her publishing company the right to scratch out her name from any of her books and replace it with their own or someone else’s.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          8 days 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.