Yet, my ex co-worker who has been convicted of murder and is serving life without possibility of parole has his account untouched [0]. It's surprising because his case was all over the news and tabloids.
Not so Fun fact: a second coworker, from the same company, different crime, has also been convicted and is serving 14 years. (Victim died when police shot the wrong person). His stack overflow account is still up.
But did your co-worker see massive online support for the murder, with loads of people arguing it was justified and good for society? He may have been "all over the news", but was it glowing, positive coverage of the murder?
Be honest, the coverage of your ex co-worker's crime was not comparable to Mangione's murder, was it?
Not just famous, but causing users to publicly support the murder and voice support for future murders too. Again, the central point is that most murder is condemned by the public while this one is enjoyable a disturbing amount of support.
I bet companies are getting uncomfortable with just how many of their users are supportive of murder, and how much it's going to increase TOS violations for incitement to violence. Do you think advertisers want their products next to threads fawning over a murderer and saying more need to be shot?
>causing users to publicly support the murder and voice support for future murders too.
Sounds like society's problem, not SO.
Put it another way, how many people would be checking on Luigi's account On SO in this way without this streisand effect it caused by banning the feww dozen users up voting him? How many people before this even knew Luigi had a SO account? How many of his posts talk about justifying murder?
If denying "fame" was SO's goal, they failed tremendously.
> Do you think advertisers want their products next to threads fawning over a murderer and saying more need to be shot?
Find those threads before we start worrying what may happen retroactively. Luigi had a manifesto, but it's not like he pasted it all over the internet as some sort of deliberate plan to gain social media clout.
There are quite a few people legitimately named Adolf Hitler. We don't ban them for their assossiation to a more famous Adolf.
When Stack Overflow starts losing advertisers because they don't want their products appearing next to posts calling for CEOs to be murdered, it becomes their problem too.
You repeated your statement without answering my question. Where are these CEO murder posts? Do you think Luigi posted a manifesto on SO?
You can barely answer questions correctly without getting them removed unless you're high rep. You think an off topic response will last more than 2 minutes?
But the point is, removing all those comments is still work. Not too many people are sad that a terrorist isn't getting attribution for his SO posts. Personally, if it save the moderation team just 10 man-hours of work I'd consider it a positive tradeoff.
> You agree that any and all content, including without limitation any and all text, graphics, logos, tools, photographs, images, illustrations, software or source code, audio and video, animations, and product feedback (collectively, “Content”) that you provide to the public Network (collectively, “Subscriber Content”), is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Overflow on a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive basis pursuant to Creative Commons licensing terms (CC BY-SA 4.0)
That requires named attribution, which SO violated, voiding the license.
I've been considering writing a distributed filesystem which makes shell pipelines easier to share with others (e.g. stronger guarantees that they'll do the same thing when run elsewhere).
Luigi, in the Mario bro's sense, goes through a lot of pipes. Perhaps I'll call it LuigiFS.
Not so Fun fact: a second coworker, from the same company, different crime, has also been convicted and is serving 14 years. (Victim died when police shot the wrong person). His stack overflow account is still up.
[0]: https://stackoverflow.com/users/968075/gareth-pursehouse