Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-02/News and notes

Discuss this story

U4C Charter vote

The result was 1249 voters in support and 420 voters opposed. 69 voters did not choose an option Who let Elon Musk rig the UCOC result? (and who let Elon Musk name it in the first place?) BilledMammal (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, operation Votey McVoteFace. I am actually impressed, even if that’s a coincidence. ASUKITE 13:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to ask the same thing. Clear violation of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK :) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm, did result in quite the chuckle at tally-time. Total coincidence of course. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In brief

Many congratulations to Sdkb for gaining admin powers! Oltrepier (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Oltrepier! I wasn't expecting it to spawn a round of RfA reform haha, but hope it leads to some improvements! Sdkb ^talk 16:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, and congratulations on the new signature! I presume to help fellow editors recognize the new ~~powers~~ responsibilities, lest they confuse you with the old {{u|pill-shaped}} Sdkb. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had been overdue for a change for a while, Andrybak, and when Q21 was asked it seemed like an opportune moment! ~~Eagle~~ Lemur-eyed observers may also notice the new avatar(s) on my user page 🙂 Sdkb ^talk 16:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politically motivated content moderation

these laws were designed to prevent social media platforms from engaging in politically motivated content moderation Are you sure? Polygnotus (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leading up to the 2020 United States elections, there was a rise of misinformation on these services related to topics such as claims of election fraud and conspiracy theories related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of this misinformation originated from conservative parties including the far right and alt right.[2] Because of this, services like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook took action to moderate these posts from users, either by tagging them as misinformation or outright removal.[2] Some of this misinformation was put forth by Republican party members, including then-President Donald Trump, leading the Republican Party to seek legal review of Section 230 believing that this law allowed politically-motivated moderation.... Two state laws passed by Florida and Texas in 2021 created state-level challenges to Section 230.

One of those is Texas House Bill 20. It is certainly not "designed to prevent social media platforms from engaging in politically motivated content moderation". It is designed to ensure that platforms can't stop the spread of fake news and misinformation (lies about the election, about Biden, about Covid et cetera). Polygnotus (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"If we have to negotiate the terms of the negotiation, we will never get anywhere." - The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. Or, more prosaically: We can discuss the law, or we can discuss how the law is described, but if we try to do both at once, it's not going to work very well. I happen to agree that the law is intended to favor conservative speech, but I don't think it would be useful to argue over whether it is intended to favor false speech specifically, and (considering the current state of the Republican Party) that is arguably a distinction without a difference anyway. --N Y Kevin 09:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NYKevin: All conversations in 2024 are metaconversations dixit the Zuckster. Anyway, when quoting something that is obviously false it is wise to throw a little [sic] or "We know this is bullshit but we are reproducing the quote as written" in there. A law intended to favor a particular political party != a law designed to prevent social media platforms from engaging in politically motivated content moderation. Not something to argue about, but worth pointing out so that people are not misled. Polygnotus (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the Texas bill, albeit a little hastily. It's not clear to me that, even if it applies to any Wikimedia sites, there is any onerous condition. I'd be interested to know which clauses are the problem here. I haven't seen the other piece of legislation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I take a more radical view, failing to see why there should be any law on the topic of censorship by social media. No need to carve out an exception for Wikipedia and the like. If The Onion or Facebook or Truth Social or whoever, want to operate a website free of dissent or balance or truth or whatever they may decide to dislike, they should be allowed to do that. We have our values; others value something else. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]