Comment by scarab92
5 days ago
It's existence.
A couple journalists broke a social media platform's rule on doxxing, and were temporarily suspended for it.
This wouldn't meet the standard for notability if it occurred on any other platform.
5 days ago
It's existence.
A couple journalists broke a social media platform's rule on doxxing, and were temporarily suspended for it.
This wouldn't meet the standard for notability if it occurred on any other platform.
You can not make Wikipedia care about your pet idea without working on it yourself, so the absence of information on something is more an issue with you than with the people that edit Wikipedia.
It is impossible to argue against you because it is an opinion. First of all there is not one "Wikipedia", second of all as politicians usually say "I can not comment on specific cases". There is some truth in that saying, you can only talk about the policy and the policy continues to be "neutral point of view". Considering the horribly biased alternatives to Wikipedia that has sprung up, I would say that Wikipedia is probably the best NPOV you are going to get.
> You can not make Wikipedia care about your pet idea without working on it yourself, so the absence of information on something is more an issue with you than with the people that edit Wikipedia.
Have you actually tried creating articles on Wikipedia? I've seen some pretty notable projects have pages that they wrote for Wikipedia be rejected as being "not noteworthy enough". Specifically Pleroma (a Fediverse application similar to Mastodon) comes to mind.
I have many fought for many disputed articles, Bitcoin is one of them. I would agree that Pleroma is not noteworthy, I am not a deletionist so I would not delete it but that is a slippery slope and you end up writing articles about date handling in Cobol. I just accept and move on, e.g. expand on the Fediverse article.
I feel for people who get their pet idea deleted.
And why was CrimethInk banned then? because they didn't dox anyone, never called for violence against people or location.
Until a "free speech defender" can explain what CrimthInc did that was against free speech that warranted the ban (and not either ignore it or sweep it under the "mistake were made" rug), i will keep thinking they are only a Musk glazer, deal?
Did they break the rules on doxxing, or did Musk just say they did?
They shared the real time location of private individuals (or links to it).
They were penalized only 24 hours after the ban took effect, but the penality was minor.
I mean, it's a massive stretch to pretend that sharing an ADS-B feed is somehow more of a share of the real time location of private individuals than livetweeting an event individuals are present at, and the reporting on Elon's U-turn on the ElonJet account that he banned journalists for came after the account had been deleted...