Muehe

joined 2 years ago
[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 70 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I see you there random Krita user! Shill baby, shill!

Video Source on Bluesky

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 month ago

I'm gonna be real with you, I don't know who or what that is and I deliberately chose to ignore the likely sarcasm, but feel free to enlighten me.

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Like I agree it is a better message in the edit, but I fear a lot of people are not ready to hear that yet and still need to work through the original before coming around to this... Still stuck in denial and whatnot.

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 month ago (2 children)

So.. "man doesn't exploit man"? Sounds good!

1
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by Muehe@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
 

Edit: Stickying some relevant "war reporting" from the comments to the post body, in a hopefully somewhat chronological order. Thanks for diving into the trenches everybody!

So the "and convicted felon" part of the screenshot that is highlighted was in the first sentence of the article about Donald Trump. After the jury verdict it was added and then removed again pretty much immediately several times over.

Then the article got editing restrictions and a warning about them (warning has been removed again):

During these restrictions there is a "RfC" (Request for Comments) thread held on the talk page of the article where anybody can voice their opinion on the matter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC_on_use_of_%22convicted_felon%22_in_first_sentence

Money quote:

There's a weird argument for **slight support**. Specifically because if we don't include it in the first paragraph somewhere, either the first sentence or in a new second sentence, there are going to be edit wars for the next 2-6 years. Guninvalid (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a second battlefield going on in the infobox on the side (this has also been removed again at this point in time):

The article can apparently only be edited by certain more trusted users at the moment, and warnings about editing "contentious" parts have been added to the article source:

To summarise, here is a map of the status quo on the ground roughly a day after the jury verdict:

 

Context:

Somebody made a post promoting the proprietary search engine they are working on, claiming in the post that it "would make Stallman smile". In a comment below the post they said that they made the statement about Stallman to "drive engagement". The post was later removed for promoting proprietary software.

Image description:

At the top is a screenshot from the modlog saying:

Removed Post We're building a search engine to compete with DuckDuckGo. No JS, no WASM, no spying. Just a statically generated results page.
reason: Comm rule 2: Don’t promote proprietary software

Below that is an image of Stallman smiling.