2012
The erasure of Luigi Mangione (substack.evancarroll.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/technology@lemmy.world
260 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
[–] 13 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So far, all I've found is a 2018 publication by the Police Executive Research Forum, entitled "The Changing Nature of Crime And Criminal Investigations". It's a 67 page document, and I'm curious to see if it discusses how their investigation tactics may have changed, and if so, whether the aforementioned tactic is mentioned as being included.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I didn't find anything. But I also work 40 plus hours a week, so that doesn't necessarily mean there's not something out there. But it's more likely the case that this might not be true, from what I know.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Another comment way down claims it's standard operating procedure for social media sites to disable/hide and account of a highly publicized murderer, particularly during investigations. However, the provided no examples nor sources or technical documents that detail this as something that is genuinely done as a standard procedure.

    I'm kinda gonna do my own research on that, but I feel the validity of Stack's actions would to some degree depend on the results of researching that claim, and whether or not that is true.

    It's kinda difficult to research something like that though when most highly publicized murders predated social media in its current form, so it would be hard to have a lot of examples despite there being a decent number of people who fit the bill, ironically.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent