5 ms·

> The rest of the society should not participate in "delivering justice": obviously not by hitting them or torturing them, but also not by taking away their pro

> The rest of the society should not participate in "delivering justice": obviously not by hitting them or torturing them, but also not by taking away their property or social capital. Why should the rest of society be forced to continue associating with someone?

agnishom 2y ago
They shouldn't be "forced" to continue associating with someone; they should not change their position on whether or not they should associate with said person based on this situation. That sounds abstract, but such concepts already exist. If you have a restaurant, you are allowed to refuse to serve someone who happens to be a member of a race R, but you are not allowed to refuse someone _because_ they are a member of race R.
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  > they should not change their position on whether or not they should associate with said person based on this situation. This sounds like you forcing them to adopt your views.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Maybe people are just very fickle these days, but last I checked: "someone posting on your server" is not association. Site owners put in that one article precisely so that cannot be the case. But this does break the CC license by unattributing content but not deleting it, so that's bad.
  - agnishom 2y ago
    I don't know if people are different these days, but we certainly have taken the concept "all relationships are voluntary" too far. If we had a society where people associated with each other only when there was personal gain to be made, that would not be a very nice society.
latexr 2y ago
How are you “forced to continue associating with someone” who is arrested and cannot use their online accounts? What exactly does that do to you? And how does Stack Overflow keeping all the posts but removing the name protect you in any way?
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >how does Stack Overflow keeping all the posts but removing the name protect you in any way? Well that's just a violation of the license they attribute posts to >Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. That's not even a moral argument. They just broke the contract they signed up to.
Pixal 2y ago
By participating in an online community, you have entered into a social contract to interact with others. Do you feel that you are being forced to post here, or read comments and responses from other humans?
- fragmede 2y ago
  https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  > you have entered into a social contract to interact with others. An entirely voluntary social contract. I'm not required to read a specific person's posts and can chose not to based on new information I'm told about them.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Yeah, and I don't need a person's name erased to choose not to read something. Especially when it's not me manually blocking them.
kuschku 2y ago
In this case, because StackExchange is acting criminally themselves. The author has licensed his posts to Stack Exchange under CC-BY-SA, which requires attribution. By removing that attribution StackExchange has commited copyright infringement, which is punishable with jailtime (as seen in the Kim Dotcom case).

agnishom 2y ago

They shouldn't be "forced" to continue associating with someone; they should not change their position on whether or not they should associate with said person based on this situation. That sounds abstract, but such concepts already exist. If you have a restaurant, you are allowed to refuse to serve someone who happens to be a member of a race R, but you are not allowed to refuse someone _because_ they are a member of race R.

philipwhiuk 2y ago
> they should not change their position on whether or not they should associate with said person based on this situation. This sounds like you forcing them to adopt your views.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Maybe people are just very fickle these days, but last I checked: "someone posting on your server" is not association. Site owners put in that one article precisely so that cannot be the case. But this does break the CC license by unattributing content but not deleting it, so that's bad.
- agnishom 2y ago
  I don't know if people are different these days, but we certainly have taken the concept "all relationships are voluntary" too far. If we had a society where people associated with each other only when there was personal gain to be made, that would not be a very nice society.

latexr 2y ago

How are you “forced to continue associating with someone” who is arrested and cannot use their online accounts? What exactly does that do to you? And how does Stack Overflow keeping all the posts but removing the name protect you in any way?

johnnyanmac 2y ago
>how does Stack Overflow keeping all the posts but removing the name protect you in any way? Well that's just a violation of the license they attribute posts to >Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. That's not even a moral argument. They just broke the contract they signed up to.

Pixal 2y ago

By participating in an online community, you have entered into a social contract to interact with others. Do you feel that you are being forced to post here, or read comments and responses from other humans?

fragmede 2y ago
https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/
philipwhiuk 2y ago
> you have entered into a social contract to interact with others. An entirely voluntary social contract. I'm not required to read a specific person's posts and can chose not to based on new information I'm told about them.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Yeah, and I don't need a person's name erased to choose not to read something. Especially when it's not me manually blocking them.

kuschku 2y ago

In this case, because StackExchange is acting criminally themselves. The author has licensed his posts to Stack Exchange under CC-BY-SA, which requires attribution. By removing that attribution StackExchange has commited copyright infringement, which is punishable with jailtime (as seen in the Kim Dotcom case).