this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
773 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

59207 readers
3599 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Foundation supports challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that jeopardize Wikipedia's community-led governance model and the right to freedom of expression.

An amicus brief, also known as a “friend-of-the-court” brief, is a document filed by individuals or organizations who are not part of a lawsuit, but who have an interest in the outcome of the case and want to raise awareness about their concerns. The Wikimedia Foundation’s amicus brief calls upon the Supreme Court to strike down laws passed in 2021 by Texas and Florida state legislatures. Texas House Bill 20 and Florida Senate Bill 7072 prohibit website operators from banning users or removing speech and content based on the viewpoints and opinions of the users in question.

“These laws expose residents of Florida and Texas who edit Wikipedia to lawsuits by people who disagree with their work,” said Stephen LaPorte, General Counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. “For over twenty years, a community of volunteers from around the world have designed, debated, and deployed a range of content moderation policies to ensure the information on Wikipedia is reliable and neutral. We urge the Supreme Court to rule in favor of NetChoice to protect Wikipedia’s unique model of community-led governance, as well as the free expression rights of the encyclopedia’s dedicated editors.”

“The quality of Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia depends entirely on the ability of volunteers to develop and enforce nuanced rules for well-sourced, encyclopedic content,” said Rebecca MacKinnon, Vice President of Global Advocacy at the Wikimedia Foundation. “Without the discretion to make editorial decisions in line with established policies around verifiability and neutrality, Wikipedia would be overwhelmed with opinions, conspiracies, and irrelevant information that would jeopardize the project’s reason for existing.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 150 points 11 months ago (8 children)

laws passed in 2021 by Texas and Florida state legislatures. Texas House Bill 20 and Florida Senate Bill 7072 prohibit website operators from banning users or removing speech and content based on the viewpoints and opinions of the users in question

What the absolute fuck America.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 82 points 11 months ago

“We want small government!”

“But also big government in cases where our hate speech might be at stake!”

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 42 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Texas and Florida are pretty well-known as the shitholes of America. Run by populist idiots who cater to the uninformed and gullible voter. I'm sure there are places like that in every country.

[–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 17 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Places like that in other countries usually don't have as much power as US States do. Other countries are better designed and don't have practically independent sub-countries inside them with their own laws.

[–] Furball@sh.itjust.works 17 points 11 months ago (13 children)

Federalism can also be a very good thing to allow autonomy for certain groups within a country, though. I wouldn’t say Unitarianism is a better design by default.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] bitcrafter@programming.dev 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If you are going to compare the United States to other political entities, I think that the better thing to compare it to is the European Union rather than other countries, because like the EU the US was formed from the union of sovereign member states and that is why it is designed the way that it is (for better or worse).

Given that, I have an honest question asked out of ignorance: Does the EU have more power over its member states than the United States does? (I am not super-familiar with it, so the answer may very well be yes.)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Drusas@kbin.social 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Feels like we're in a death spiral.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The wording of this law makes no sense to me. You could apply it to almost anything

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rolder@reddthat.com 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How would it work if, say, a website run out of California or even another country violated this law

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 18 points 11 months ago

Pretty much the same way that Europe's GDPR works: they fine the business operations within the covered jurisdiction. If you don't do business in their jurisdiction, you are perfectly free to tell them to shove their regulation up their ass.

Wikimedia collects donations from Texans. If these laws survive a legal challenge, Wikimedia would either have to stop collecting donations from Texas or comply with Texas law.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HonorIsDead@lemmy.world 115 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Wikipedia is one of the most impressive collective creations of the modern world. One day corrupt politicians will ruin it. They're one of the organizations I donate to every year in my futile hope they preserve it as long as possible. Articles like this just reinforces the need to vote for people who aren't actually cartoon villains. May not vote for SC but we do for who appoints them.

[–] triptrapper@lemmy.world 45 points 11 months ago (14 children)

I donate frequently also. It pains me that people poke fun at Wikimedia or Jimmy Wales for their constant fundraising. It's such a ubiquitous tool, it's a miracle that it's free.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

It's entirely possible to get it out of their reach. It needs to be pushed out to the point of the Pirate Bay.

It's just begging for their primary mechanism to be decentralized. They could severely reduce their operating expenses if they went to community hosting.

DHT, chunks of it hosted everywhere. New content and corrections come down as deltas. There are already copies of it on IPFS that are relatively robust, as robust as IPFS can be anyway.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 77 points 11 months ago (2 children)

So am I to understand that this is yet another attempt by fascists and Nazis to claim free speech rights as a way to destroy free speech and oppress all opposing voices, including those who defend factual information?

[–] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 22 points 11 months ago

It's basically the tactic of adding noise to a discourse to derail the conversation, thus preventing conversation altogether and keeping factual information from being accessible.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Buttons@programming.dev 72 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I've said this before. They are targeting the wrong layer!

They want to force websites to be neutral while allowing the internet providers to block and shape traffic however they want.

Force ISPs to allow access to all websites - good

Force ISPs to allow anyone to host a website at home - good

Force AWS to allow anyone to pay for and host websites on their infrastructure - probably good, but we're approaching the line

Force websites to host content they don't want to host - bad

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 41 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's almost like they're just wrong about everything.

[–] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's not about being right or wrong, they know what they're doing. Quit giving them the benefit of the doubt.

They want to derail discourse so they can apply their politically expedient talking points without competition or questioning.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 7 points 11 months ago

Wrong as in wrong-headed. They want to make everything worse.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 39 points 11 months ago (12 children)

I wish they would move their base of operations to a country with a more stable government and just ignore weird laws like this.

[–] p1mrx@sh.itjust.works 22 points 11 months ago

These laws expose residents of Florida and Texas who edit Wikipedia to lawsuits by people who disagree with their work

If that quote it accurate, then it doesn't matter where Wikipedia itself is based.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Honestly moving to the EU is probably their best bet. But laws respecting speech are not nearly as liberal.

[–] ilmagico@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But laws respecting speech are not nearly as liberal.

Then I'm not sure if it would be their best bet ... Wikipedia relies on free speech on many levels.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 37 points 11 months ago

They should just show up to Clarence Thomas' house with a suitcase of money and get some Argentinian old guy to call up Roberts claiming to be the Pope and tell him how to vote.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

They say the multiverse contains every possible version of existence. They are wrong. There is no version of existence in which our illegitimate "supreme" court sides with any entity that exists to provide honest education to the public. As long as conservatives have infested the court (and our nation), it simply cannot happen.

[–] Kiosade@lemmy.ca 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well yeah they said every POSSIBLE version. If it’s not possible, it wouldn’t exist in the multiverse.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Can Wikipedia simply not allow users from Texas or Florida? I.e. not operate in that jurisdiction?

[–] Bread@sh.itjust.works 57 points 11 months ago (17 children)

Yes, but that kinda defeats the point of an open knowledge library for all. This is a problem that should be fixed with legislation and not artificial blocking. We shouldn't punish the unfortunate for being stuck with the stupid.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

We shouldn't punish the unfortunate for being stuck with the stupid.

I'm a Texan and over 7 mil didn't vote in the last gubernatorial election. Block us. It'll piss off high school and college students royally and they're the blocks we need voting.

[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Cheers for this (and my condolences), as much as it sucks to block Texas, it'd be much worse to let Texas ruin Wikipedia for the rest of the world.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KmlSlmk64@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What would happen, if they ignored the laws and did not geoblock Texas and Florida, just say they don't operate there, but not restrict the users and still operate the way they operated until now?

[–] Bread@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago (9 children)

Fines I would assume. Lawsuits even.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Goddammit, now I’m going to have to donate, arent i

[–] holdthecheese@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Do it. One of the best things the Internet ever enabled.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 22 points 11 months ago

these fascist laws are fucking insane. we need to stop these state governments now!

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I think people would be surprised just how often the Wikipedia mods have to remind people that the government or court of any nation does not affect the facts of an event or change the reporting of media.

There's a cesspool of a changes thread for the Gujarat Massacre page because every BJP supporter showed up deleting entire swaths of paragraphs because the Supreme Court of India cleared Modi of any involvement, so obviously that means he's innocent and the event in question never happened.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago

I feel like those laws would affect all social media platforms and directly go against Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

[–] rhythmisaprancer@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago

Gosh this seems so relevant to the Wikipedia highway discussion. Maybe there cannot be flexibility in their rules when they are facing this type of threat.

load more comments
view more: next ›