this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
2012 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
69247 readers
4571 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
So he hasn't confessed and you just believe what law enforcement and the media says?
Nah fuck that he's innocent.
I doubt that. Regardless, that's not the point here, the point is that he's a public figure and shutting down his SO makes a lot of sense to avoid vandalism and whatnot. He is a very credible suspect in a high profile murder.