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.
user4616250 will now be a famous meme. “How do we fix healthcare? We call user4616250.”
Anytime a CEO does something questionable; “/ping user4616250”
A musician needs to write a catchy tune to put the name to so people will remember the numbers.
♪ 0118 999 88199 9119 725 …3
Oh this takes me back! Thanks for the laugh you triggered :)
0118 999 881 999 119 725… 3
“calling user 461-62-50, he’s our dude, what he does is nifty!” :)
It will likely take months, but I’m gonna try. I might give up before it is done, though.
I believe in you. If it isn’t the new 867-5309, hopefully it will at least be the next 6060-842.
Luigi, when the CEO fell.
Get Vikas Music, he’s based enough to put it to eurobeat.
I suggest these guys
Nice and catchy, but it needs to be catchy with more digits. Tommy “Tutone” Heath is still alive. I’m just saying.
Moat famous number since 24601
I was thinking tattoo…
It’s like squid game where they identify you by a number. Long live user4616250
Please let it be, haha
Headquarters seems to be:
70 White Lion Street, London, England, N1 9PP
To send all your angry letters too.
Make sure to include bullet points
Bullet points work best when using a 9mm font size.
(Approximately 25.5 pt. Now, the closest traditionally named font size is 24pt, called “double pica”, and Pica Pica is the latin name for the magpie, who is known for stealing and hoarding shiny things. What does this mean??)
Settle down, Charlie Day.
Someone’s been reading up since they recently became literate. Thanks Abbott!
PowerPoint is seldom used in the Mafia because of all the bullet points.
Marked as triplicate
Gottem
I used to live in that neighborhood. That must just be one of those places that gives people an address that looks fancy methinks
It’s a place called “Spaces” seems like companies rent a small room or so as a physical presence.
Definitely not any kind of HQ. I’d be surprised if more than one or two people go there for Stack Exchange. Mostly remote employees?
Stack Overflow has been toxic for a long time already. It’s one of the things that a lot of people seem pleased to see AI devour.
I haven’t really had an issue with SA toxicity.
Time to boycott the platform!
What can Stack Overflow’s motivation possibly be to strip Luigi’s account? Are their private equity owners in cahoots with health insurance executives?
A connection I may be inventing comes to mind: all the CEOs making million dollar donations to the new administration in the US.
Basically, show you’re on the side of “law and order” and hope you’re not caught up in any purges.
Preemptive compliance.
In tejas we call that bootlicking
In Netherland we call that “kontkussen” which both means “butt kissing” as a verb and “butt pillow” as a noun.
Kiss the ring.
It’s pretty standard when a highly-publicized murder suspect’s online profiles are discovered. Platform admins will typically disable/hide their accounts from the public while investigations/trials are ongoing. This is hardly unique to Luigi.
Do you have other examples? Because the article gave an example of a similar account that was not anonynized like this. Sure, accounts are often taken down, but the content isn’t left up.
How would this apply to the fediverse
It would depend on the software in use, but i think the instance admin could probably delete the account. About renaming… maybe, fiddling with the database. Again, depends on the software (and admin).
It probably wouldn’t, because it’s unlikely anyone is going to do the work, especially since there are a lot of jurisdictions involved. That’s a lot of work for a relatively small userbase.
deleted by creator
I’m starring this cause I want to look into this myself, and if I find any technical sources that address this claim and actually detail this as a SOP, I’ll reply with that source later, or otherwise reply with “I didn’t find anything.”
Source: your ass
maybe its poisoning the ai training
deleted by creator
They’re scared of Luigi still, got it
That’s not what the article is about. Stack Overflow has kept content that Luigi created up, but removed his username, in violation of Creative Commons. Edited the post to make that more clear.
If they weren’t afraid of what he represents they wouldn’t have removed his name.
Yeah exactly. And they’re not allowed to under the Creative Commons licence
…and yet…
Which is exactly the reason we are in a post discussing it.
Yup, it would be interesting to see this tried in court.
May I suggest a European one?
This is the equivalent of a bank robber standing in a vault, filling his bag full of jewels. One of the hostages yelling “You can’t do this, it’s illegal.” Some other guy yells “…and yet…” minutes before police sirens can be heard outside.
I look forward to Mangiine catching wind of this, which is basically theft, and adding it to the laundry list of things to be tried in court.
Indeed, I wonder if we’ll start seeing reforms before or after a copycat strikes.
I doubt before. They’re still hoping they can erase or villainize him. I expect the news media will ignore his trial in favor of whatever antics Trump or Musk are up to, and we won’t hear much about him until there’s a guilty verdict they can parade before the masses in order to dissuade them from copying him. If he does get mentioned, they’ll be trying to frame him in as negative a light as possible and downplay his motives. I also expect the big social media will censor discussion under the guise of not promoting violence, or simply shadow ban any mention of him.
deleted by creator
No, they’re terrified of us now, they know we tasted blood and are hungry for more.
I know I am. I’m so sick of this system they’ve created and perpetuated for decades/centuries. I just want to live my fucking life without worrying about basic needs, or how someone with most can take even more from those who have little. Americans have more guns per capita than almost anywhere else. Those are guns in the hands of the people, not mercs or armies or private security. They should be afraid of us. They should be checking their car’s undercarriage daily before getting in. They should vary their routes daily to avoid patterns. They should see every person on the street as a potential assassin. Only THEN, will anything about these parasites’ attitudes change.
Unfortunately, so many with the skills to engage in revolution are aligned with the interests of these corporate leeches, and thus are fighting the masses, instead of standing with them. They wanted a Civil War #2, it’s time to kick up, not down!
Most gun owners are biggest bootlickers out there… They didn’t get weapons to fight corporate tyranny, they got them to shoot poor people they don’t like
Actually, they got them to shoot gun-wielding home invaders who threaten (if not attempt to murder) their family members.
Fucking terrified. I’ve never seen corpos circle their wagons like this before. It’s hilarious.
By this logic, everyone charged (not convicted, just charged) should have their accounts and submissions changed in the same manner as Luigi’s.
Man I sure wish this’d mean all Trump-generated content and speeches got deleted. That’d be genuinely helpful to the world at least…
Didn’t he confess though? That’s quite a bit different than a pending trial.
The presumption or admission of guilt does not and should not justify violating the Creative Commons License, nor perpetrating any illegal behavior agains any individual(s).
If JK Rowling went out and robbed a bank, or murdered an ex-Husband, in no world or timeline would that give a member of her publishing company the right to scratch out her name from any of her books and replace it with their own or someone else’s.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pled not guilty. No he did not.
Pretty much everyone pleads not guilty, especially in a politically motivated murder charge (there’s always a chance of a hung jury or jury nullification). That said, his manifesto could be considered a form of confession and will certainly be used as evidence to that effect.
He pled not guilty, it really is that simple.
Innocent until proven guilty.
I never said he was guilty, I said he confessed. A plead of “not guilty” doesn’t necessarily mean you think you’re innocent (i.e. you perjure yourself; the 5th amendment protects against that), it just means you want to go through a trial. You can confess and still choose to go through trial proceedings.
To add, plenty of innocent people give false confessions of guilt. It’s a known pattern in human behavior especially under stress and duress.
I have no information to say whether this case is an example of that one way or the other, but just putting that out there.
I’m just saying that there’s probably enough evidence that it’s reasonable for a social media site to pull/hide his profile despite not being sentenced. He’s obviously innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn’t mean his profiles are immune from vandalism and whatnot.
I was not aware he confessed and can’t find anything saying he did. Do you have a source confirming he’s confessed?
It’s more his manifesto, which has a clear motive.
That’s fucking bullshit.
Censorship needs to die.
platforms like this are essentially private ownership of the commons
“Cancel culture” as a term has been abused, but this one… damn this is really cancel culture.
deleted by creator
Apropos of nothing, this was an article about substance from a year ago:
Substack faces user revolt over anti-censorship stance on neo-Nazis
Fuck substack.
Shit, this article is about stack overflow, not substack. Too early, but still fuck substack.
It’s about SO but on SS so you were still right!
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.
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
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
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.
deleted by creator
Jfc y’all sound like magats
There is no law forcing a company to spread your message for you.
There is when Stack is using a creative commons license.
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.
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.
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.
usernames are the only form of attribution that makes sense and has ever been used (aside from email, which is again practically a username)
They agreed to terms when they operated under Creative Commons.
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.
Idk, I feel like Luigi Mangione being a phrase not allowed on Stack Overflow just makes sense. Good policy.
“No wars but class wars” as true today as when Trotsky said it many decades ago. Not sure how anyone cannot see this very, very clear fact, made self evident by the treatment of Luigi and the composition of the upcoming administration and its supporters.
But every other commoner that sees it needs to take according measures.
Culture is not our friend.
Righteous censorship, got it.
Can’t have a “terrorist” demonstrating his competence and productivity after all.
The overlords know they’ve really fucked up when the competent, productive people start getting resentful and side-eyeing the system.
Don’t worry everyone, the new President is going to rename the Gulf of Mexico and annex Greenland, so that will take care of it!
True, although it may also be “good things” done by person do not outweigh “bad thing” done by person. I’m sure there’s a name for that.
Like human experimentation. Yes, bad, shouldn’t be done, outright illegal, immoral, inhumane, but has been done. Should we discard the scientific results?Obviously no… We hired these criminals so they can keep doing these experiments in the US!
Righteous censorship is only “righteous” because everyone else is prevented from saying otherwise.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
“Trickle down economics only occurs when the wealthy bleed.”
Similar, and appropriate. The working class will only benefit once the wealthy are no longer wealthy.
Stopped using stack overflow ages ago because of how many assholes there are there.
You don’t want to go to Pornhub then
You’d probably get better coding advice in the comments.
I got a decade old question closed as a duplicate.
You can just ask an AI anyway since it’s training set will basically just be stackoverflow.
the entirety of stackoverflow is not enough data to make the AI work properly. They need terabytes of text, stackoverflow has about 50-100GB of useful data at most
Plus AI is actually happy to answer your random questions, with an immediate response. Stack overflow will quickly become obsolete as AI gets better
AI is just regurgitating old stack overflow. It’s not going to get better.
Assigning to a number like they do prisoners.
Disgusting behaviour from Stack Overflow and the perpetrators.
He’s user number 24601 as far as I’m concerned
Gione Valgione
694201337
we are all numbers. lemmy.ca has a user number for you, your government has a number for you, your local library has a number for you.
that is just how a digital world works.
probably was the internal id number, but still scummy behaviour.
Jean Valjean was labelled prisoner number 24601, apropos of nothing
Who is that?
Ah, a character for Les Miserables.
Why the fuck did they turn the book into a musical I can never unfortunately understand
Money. Like how the CEO who got shot turned people’s suffering into money
I enjoyed it, though I’d much prefer to watch it live.
