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.

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    823·
    10 hours ago

    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.zipEnglish
      23·
      8 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.eeEnglish
      9·
      7 hours ago

      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.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.worldEnglish
      336·
      9 hours ago

      Jfc y’all sound like magats

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

      • Zink@programming.devEnglish
        5·
        4 hours ago

        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.worldEnglish
          431·
          6 hours ago

          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.

          • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.worldEnglish
            402·
            8 hours ago

            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.

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.worldEnglish
              28·
              7 hours ago

              Idk if usernames count as “attribution”, even, but I assume the results would be the same if an account was named Jeremy Assface, Ted Bundy, or Adolf Hitler even if the user’s actual name was such. Not to compare Luigi to any of those people, no, but the point is usernames are moderated.

              • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                81·
                7 hours ago

                usernames are the only form of attribution that makes sense and has ever been used (aside from email, which is again practically a username)