return2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agoMAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairsgizmodo.comexternal-linkmessage-square156fedilinkarrow-up1759arrow-down17
arrow-up1752arrow-down1external-linkMAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairsgizmodo.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square156fedilink
minus-squareCommunist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-29 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-down2·8 hours agoYou’re moving goalposts, but ok.
minus-squareCommunist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-27 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?
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?