I feel like they should see the consequences of their actions. The politicians might learn that the public won’t put up with this shit, rather than have it forced upon them by a higher court so they can continue to play the victim card.
Comment on Wikimedia Foundation calls on US Supreme Court to strike laws that threaten Wikipedia
Bread@sh.itjust.works 6 months agoYes, but that kinda defeats the point of an open knowledge library for all. This is a problem that should be fixed with legislation and not artificial blocking. We shouldn’t punish the unfortunate for being stuck with the stupid.
jaybone@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Not everyone in Florida and Texas voted for the fascists and not everyone who wanted to vote against them were able to.
Punishing those who are not complicit is injust, not to mention excellent campaign fodder for the fascists.
Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 6 months ago
Honestly… I get your point and I know people in Texas that don’t agree with Texas politics. However, the largest party in the county is the party of “I don’t vote.” If you actually manage to wake up 10%… 20%… 30%… of those people, plus all the Republican voters that didn’t want it, plus all the Democrats that didn’t want it and/or got lazy with their state votes… Well we might actually see major change in representation from Texas.
AtmaJnana@lemmy.world 6 months ago
“If you don’t like ibeing bombed, get your neighbors to stop supporting Hamas.”
Collective punishment.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 6 months ago
the largest party in the county is the party of “I don’t vote.” If you actually manage to wake up 10%… 20%… 30%… of those people
Which part of “not able to” don’t you get? Calling disenfranchised people asleep is victim blaming that doesn’t give them the right and ability to vote back.
jaybone@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I understand your point. My intention isn’t so much to “punish” as to have them see the consequences of their policies. Which should drive a sane voting public against them once they really see first hand the consequences. If SCOTUS or someone hands down a ruling to counter them, then they just play the victim card, and their supporters are emboldened.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Again, not all sane Texans and Floridians are afforded the rights and opportunities needed to vote or otherwise get their voice heard.
If anything, geoblocking those states would only serve to deprive those not savvy enough to deploy a VPN and that’s a group that’s already more likely to be fooled by the demagogues and dishonest media outlets that would paint Wikipedia as the villains.
In other words, geoblocking the fascist-occupied territories would only serve to harden the support of the fascists while inconveniencing many and accomplishing nothing positive.
I agree 💯 that there needs to be consequences for the tyrannical actions of fascists, but geoblocking isn’t it.
KmlSlmk64@lemmy.world 6 months ago
What would happen, if they ignored the laws and did not geoblock Texas and Florida, just say they don’t operate there, but not restrict the users and still operate the way they operated until now?
Bread@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Fines I would assume. Lawsuits even.
Buttons@programming.dev 6 months ago
How does that work?
Like, let’s say I’m born in Oregon, I live my whole life in Oregon, I get to vote for national representative and Oregon representatives. I set up a server in Oregon, my server responds to electronic requests that it receives from an Oregon company which I connect to with a wire that goes through Oregon.
Then I get sued for breaking Texas laws. At what point did I become subject to Texas law?
emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
If I remember correctly, at least some of Wikipedia’s servers are in Florida. So Florida would definitely be able to take action against them.
KmlSlmk64@lemmy.world 6 months ago
But, like when they would say in their EULA, that people from Texas and Florida are not allowed, then by using the service would be breaking of EULA and the wikipedia foundation could theoretically say that they’re not operating there and it’s the users fault.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 6 months ago
You can’t just put illegal discrimination in your EULA and expect it to be legally binding for the user. Also, you don’t even have to sign a EULA to use Wikipedia. It’s an open dictionary, not a proprietary app from a for-profit company.
removed_by_admin@feddit.de 6 months ago
Yes, but that kinda defeats the point of an open knowledge library for all.
Not if they are just blocking editors/authors, not regular viewers.
Bread@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
That would conflict with the proposed law. They want to be able to write what they want, not see what already exists.
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I’m a Texan and over 7 mil didn’t vote in the last gubernatorial election. Block us. It’ll piss off high school and college students royally and they’re the blocks we need voting.
MisterFrog@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Cheers for this (and my condolences), as much as it sucks to block Texas, it’d be much worse to let Texas ruin Wikipedia for the rest of the world.
Bread@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
History has taught us restricting access to knowledge never goes well. It will piss some people off, sure. Enough to make a difference? Can’t say, most people are indifferent. As long as they get AN answer, that’s all they care about. Not necessarily the correct one.