I was thinking more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Privacy_Act

did you really cross-post this and not even fix the typo in the title

??? reply to the wrong comment?

normally they don't, perhaps there are such plugins available, but the normal way of using them is to have those threads on top that have most recently been posted in, and that concept should definitely be protected by section 230 and equivalents

About half of those (esp. those that involve the Supreme Court) would have happened under any generic Republican president too. They are not specific to Trump.

The first two, I agree with you, really are horrible; but they are also proofs that the American democratic system works because Trump didn't end up succeeding with them.

I'm familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that, yeah. I am also familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that there are topic areas (such as Israel/Palestine and the Holocaust in Poland on the English-language version) where the shortcomings of the wiki system are completely evident. Once you have to restrict editing to users with more than 500 edits and make special rules how to handle sourcing, it's clear that the wiki just isn't a suitable mechanism: if there are so many people wanting to write about a topic that you have to do that, then why not abandon the wiki concept altogether?

The greatest success story of the wiki principle isn't Wikipedia, nor any other Wikimedia project. The greatest success story of the wiki principle is OpenStreetMap, which does limit itself to objective facts and is used not just by people, but also organizations. I work as a software developer and I've encountered usages of OpenStreetMap data many times, but of anything on Wikimedia projects? Wikipedia is great for teenagers to get an overview of the world, but everyone who actually needs the information in it has better sources for it anyway.

I suspect that I am; I am not omnipresent and not aware of everything happening everywhere.

Am I right that the logic is approximately like this: FOSS is a left-wing anti-business cause, misinformation tends to help right-wing parties win elections, therefore it is compatible with FOSS values and principles to want to use the power that proprietary software developers have in order to censor ("stop the spread of") misinformation?

As I said I got these numbers from https://gs.statcounter.com/

You are not alone https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tamerragriffin/yahoo-finance-nigger-navy-typo

I am, unlike you, generally a fan of Scott Alexander, and I think he also got it right (more recently) that moderation is different from censorship. I am opposed to most censorship. I am not ever opposed to moderation.

I would still find it admirable, but it isn't possible to do something like that anymore.

If you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches.

I am one of those three principled civil libertarians. I joined Voat in mid-2015, then left some months later because frankly I didn't actually like reading the things they tended to post there. I liked (out of a principled commitment to free speech) that they were allowed to post them, that doesn't mean I wanted to read that stuff.

oh, so that isn't how it is supposed to be? I was wondering how to search for communities, this is the only Lemmy instance I have ever used, maybe I should pick a different one?