return2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 年前MAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairsgizmodo.comexternal-linkmessage-square156linkfedilinkarrow-up1788arrow-down18
arrow-up1780arrow-down1external-linkMAGA Puts Wikipedia in Its Crosshairsgizmodo.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 年前message-square156linkfedilink
minus-squareCommunistlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·1 年前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
minus-squarehumanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.sulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down3·1 年前You’re moving goalposts, but ok.
minus-squareCommunistlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·1 年前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?
minus-squarehumanoidchaos@lemmy.cif.sulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·1 年前Gonna block you now. Some people just love to argue no matter what, lol.
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?
Gonna block you now.
Some people just love to argue no matter what, lol.