The saga on Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange, and how tech always serves the ruling class.

Right now, on Stack Overflow, Luigi Magione’s account has been renamed. Despite having fruitfully contributed to the network he is stripped of his name and his account is now known as “user4616250”.

This appears to violate the creative commons license under which Stack Overflow content is posted.

When the author asked about this:

As of yet, Stack Exchange has not replied to the above post, but they did promptly and within hours gave me a year-long ban for merely raising the question. Of course, they did draft a letter which credited the action to other events that occurred weeks before where I merely upvoted contributions from Luigi and bountied a few of his questions.

  • Zier@fedia.io
    7·
    2 months ago

    user4616250 will now be a famous meme. “How do we fix healthcare? We call user4616250.”

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
    3·
    2 months ago

    Stack Overflow has been toxic for a long time already. It’s one of the things that a lot of people seem pleased to see AI devour.

    • oce 🐆@jlai.luEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      I’ve read it is still well valued because people will keep asking questions there when LLM can’t answer, so they remain a precious source of post LLM curated Q&A.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          0·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, AI has become good enough at this point that you can provide it with a large blob of context material - such as API documentation, source code, etc. - and then have it come up with its own questions and answers about it to create a corpus of “synthetic data” to train on. And you can fine-tune the synthetic data to fit the format and style that you want, such as telling it not to be snarky or passive-aggressive or whatever.

  • Gork@lemm.eeEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    What can Stack Overflow’s motivation possibly be to strip Luigi’s account? Are their private equity owners in cahoots with health insurance executives?

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      A connection I may be inventing comes to mind: all the CEOs making million dollar donations to the new administration in the US.

      Basically, show you’re on the side of “law and order” and hope you’re not caught up in any purges.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    I cross posted this to Hacker News (which is very pro-CEO and big corpo) and it’s now rank 1 on the front page, lmao. People really support this guy

    (And it’s funny because in the comments, people are seething “Nooooo he’s not popular, look at these polls that show he has 13% approval!!”)

    (Not sharing link to avoid brigade)

    • Bronzebeard@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Wait, seriously? WTF is it named hacker news? Hackers are the least corporate people out there…

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.worldEnglish
      01·
      2 months ago

      What kind of world have we come into where Hacker News is a pro corporation website?

      Hackers used to be the antithesis of big corporations and capitalist overreach.

  • WhatYouNeed@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    By this logic, everyone charged (not convicted, just charged) should have their accounts and submissions changed in the same manner as Luigi’s.

      • SolaceFiend@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          should not justify violating the Creative Commons License

          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.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    i have no love for brian thompson or ceos but the canonisation of a well off wealthy rich kid from a family of republicans is a bit disturbing.