5 ms·

But did your co-worker see massive online support for the murder, with loads of people arguing it was justified and good for society? He may have been "all over

But did your co-worker see massive online support for the murder, with loads of people arguing it was justified and good for society? He may have been "all over the news", but was it glowing, positive coverage of the murder? Be honest, the coverage of your ex co-worker's crime was not comparable to Mangione's murder, was it?

johnnyanmac 2y ago
So you need to be famous to get banned from the internet?
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  Not just famous, but causing users to publicly support the murder and voice support for future murders too. Again, the central point is that most murder is condemned by the public while this one is enjoyable a disturbing amount of support. I bet companies are getting uncomfortable with just how many of their users are supportive of murder, and how much it's going to increase TOS violations for incitement to violence. Do you think advertisers want their products next to threads fawning over a murderer and saying more need to be shot?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >causing users to publicly support the murder and voice support for future murders too. Sounds like society's problem, not SO. Put it another way, how many people would be checking on Luigi's account On SO in this way without this streisand effect it caused by banning the feww dozen users up voting him? How many people before this even knew Luigi had a SO account? How many of his posts talk about justifying murder? If denying "fame" was SO's goal, they failed tremendously. > Do you think advertisers want their products next to threads fawning over a murderer and saying more need to be shot? Find those threads before we start worrying what may happen retroactively. Luigi had a manifesto, but it's not like he pasted it all over the internet as some sort of deliberate plan to gain social media clout. There are quite a few people legitimately named Adolf Hitler. We don't ban them for their assossiation to a more famous Adolf.
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      > Sounds like society's problem, not SO. When Stack Overflow starts losing advertisers because they don't want their products appearing next to posts calling for CEOs to be murdered, it becomes their problem too.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        You repeated your statement without answering my question. Where are these CEO murder posts? Do you think Luigi posted a manifesto on SO? You can barely answer questions correctly without getting them removed unless you're high rep. You think an off topic response will last more than 2 minutes?
        Manuel_D 2y ago
        But the point is, removing all those comments is still work. Not too many people are sad that a terrorist isn't getting attribution for his SO posts. Personally, if it save the moderation team just 10 man-hours of work I'd consider it a positive tradeoff.
        kuschku 2y ago
        You're saying — if we distill it into a general rule — that if it saves 10 man-hours of work, copyright infringement is right. While I personally disagree with copyright on principle, I'm not sure if you've fully considered the ramifications of your argument. 10 man-hours of work, at minimum wage, is about the price of a video game right now. Your argument would mean piracy of video games is pretty much always right
        Manuel_D 2y ago
        > that if it saves 10 man-hours of work, copyright infringement is right. The posters to SO give copyright to the company as per the TOS. No copyright violation is happening.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

So you need to be famous to get banned from the internet?

Manuel_D 2y ago
Not just famous, but causing users to publicly support the murder and voice support for future murders too. Again, the central point is that most murder is condemned by the public while this one is enjoyable a disturbing amount of support. I bet companies are getting uncomfortable with just how many of their users are supportive of murder, and how much it's going to increase TOS violations for incitement to violence. Do you think advertisers want their products next to threads fawning over a murderer and saying more need to be shot?
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >causing users to publicly support the murder and voice support for future murders too. Sounds like society's problem, not SO. Put it another way, how many people would be checking on Luigi's account On SO in this way without this streisand effect it caused by banning the feww dozen users up voting him? How many people before this even knew Luigi had a SO account? How many of his posts talk about justifying murder? If denying "fame" was SO's goal, they failed tremendously. > Do you think advertisers want their products next to threads fawning over a murderer and saying more need to be shot? Find those threads before we start worrying what may happen retroactively. Luigi had a manifesto, but it's not like he pasted it all over the internet as some sort of deliberate plan to gain social media clout. There are quite a few people legitimately named Adolf Hitler. We don't ban them for their assossiation to a more famous Adolf.
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    > Sounds like society's problem, not SO. When Stack Overflow starts losing advertisers because they don't want their products appearing next to posts calling for CEOs to be murdered, it becomes their problem too.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      You repeated your statement without answering my question. Where are these CEO murder posts? Do you think Luigi posted a manifesto on SO? You can barely answer questions correctly without getting them removed unless you're high rep. You think an off topic response will last more than 2 minutes?
      - Manuel_D 2y ago
        But the point is, removing all those comments is still work. Not too many people are sad that a terrorist isn't getting attribution for his SO posts. Personally, if it save the moderation team just 10 man-hours of work I'd consider it a positive tradeoff.
        kuschku 2y ago
        You're saying — if we distill it into a general rule — that if it saves 10 man-hours of work, copyright infringement is right. While I personally disagree with copyright on principle, I'm not sure if you've fully considered the ramifications of your argument. 10 man-hours of work, at minimum wage, is about the price of a video game right now. Your argument would mean piracy of video games is pretty much always right
        Manuel_D 2y ago
        > that if it saves 10 man-hours of work, copyright infringement is right. The posters to SO give copyright to the company as per the TOS. No copyright violation is happening.