Other accounts:

@subignition (dead?)
@subignition

  • 0 Posts
  • 38 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 1st, 2023

help-circle






  • No, that’s not entirely on her. It sucks that she didn’t step out of line from Biden’s stance on Israel. But it also sucks that a lot of Democratic voters decided their personal feelings of moral sanctimony justified electing someone with a drastically worse stance on the issue.

    I don’t think there’s been an election in living memory where people liked 100% of the candidate’s policy. Your duty as a voter is to make the most suitable choice from among the viable candidates. People who claimed they couldn’t vote for Kamala because she wouldn’t oppose Israel’s genocide, and who abstained from voting, directly contributed to worsening the situation with their choices, and they aided in deeply sabotaging (if not destroying) the country in the process.

    “You can’t support Harris without supporting genocide” was right-wing propagandist bullshit the entire time, and it’s deeply saddening that so many people couldn’t see the forest for the trees. Most of them are probably still feeling smug about it while ignoring the blood on their hands.






  • the court ordered Wikipedia to disclose who made these allegedly defamatory edits to the ANI page

    … Isn’t the edit history public, though? They should be able to determine the IPs/users who are responsible for the edits.

    I don’t know how the Indian legal system works, but then if necessary you would try to compel Wikipedia to turn over contact information for those users, as with a subpoena in US law.

    After looking over the article, Wikipedia has turned over user info to that effect. ANI is mad because they weren’t allowed to edit their own page, essentially, which is disallowed on Wikipedia in general because of bias.

    The hearing began in July after ANI petitioned the court, saying it had tried to change the allegedly defamatory material on Wikipedia but its edits were not accepted.

    The ANI page was put under “extended confirmed protection” - a Wikipedia feature used to stop vandalism or abuse - where only users who have already done a certain number of edits can make changes to a page.


  • You’re kidding me… I was discussing whether his actions meet the definition of a crime and therefore whether the established legal punishment would be appropriate. As others have commented he IS an American citizen (from 2002) and there’s no question of jurisdiction here. Although treason is a very high bar (despite mounting evidence) and it is much more likely that he could be got for sedition under the Smith Act or something.

    I disagree with your decision. I think your effort would be better spent focusing on the folks actually advocating for vigilantism.