Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://hachyderm.io/users/molly0xfff/statuses/113761360352985289">Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 03-Jan-2025 08:30:08 JST</a><a href="https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff" title="molly0xfff@hachyderm.io"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/34789-48-20230824095227.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Molly White" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Molly White</a><div><a href="https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff/113761351288184918" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a></div></section><article><p>Attacks on press freedom and free expression have become commonplace, even among the right’s self-described free speech champions. But neither Trump, Musk, nor anyone on the right can control Wikipedia as they wish.</p><p><a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/Wikipedia" rel="tag">#Wikipedia</a> <a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/ElonMusk" rel="tag">#ElonMusk</a> <a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/USpolitics" rel="tag">#USpolitics</a> <a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/USpol" rel="tag">#USpol</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/4303146#notice-8412200">In conversation</a><time datetime="2025-01-03T08:30:08+09:00" title="Friday, 03-Jan-2025 08:30:08 JST">about 2 months ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff/113761360352985289" rel="external" title="Sent from hachyderm.io via ActivityPub">hachyderm.io</a></span></span><a href="https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff/113761360352985289">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/3831467">Control
The rise of the MAGA right in the United States has sparked some startling changes in attitudes towards press freedom and freedom of expression. Although many on the right, including Musk,1819 have styled themselves as valiant defenders of free speech, their actions expose them as opposite: only willing to defend speech they find agreeable, while hostile towards and desperate to clamp down on criticism or opposing views. Musk, for example, has directed that “cisgender” be blocklisted on Twitter as a “slur”, and posts by most accounts that contain the word are automatically hidden from view (unlike posts containing the long list of slurs he has apparently deemed acceptable).20 He has brought SLAPP lawsuits against critics, including one dismissed by a federal judge as clearly intended to “punish [the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate] for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. [Twitter] — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”21 He spent $44 billion to acquire Twitter, ostensibly over concerns that conservative voices were being unfairly silenced, but really so that he could be the one to dictate which speech was and was not allowed on the platform.Similar attacks on speech are becoming only more common throughout the American right, with president-elect Trump’s longstanding hostility to the media escalating at a rapid clip. In recent months, Trump has suggested he wouldn’t mind if reporters were shot,</a></label><br><a href="https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/761/352/865/562/554/original/4f6508d28b1192d6.png" rel="external">https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/761/352/865/562/554/original/4f6508d28b1192d6.png</a></li><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/3831468">But neither Trump, Musk, nor anyone on the right can control Wikipedia as they wish. A 2022 tweet from a New York Post reporter, musing about how much Musk would have to spend to buy Wikipedia, was met with a clear rebuke from Jimmy Wales: “Not for sale.”28 The site later echoed the sentiment in its fundraising appeals, nodding at the idea that Musk should just “buy Wikipedia” like he did with Twitter when it reassured potential donors that “there is no danger that someone will buy Wikipedia and turn it into their personal playground.”Attempts to coerce changes to Wikipedia’s content via the legal system would likely fall flatter than lawsuits Musk and his ilk have threatened or filed against critics, because the Wikimedia Foundation has proven itself remarkably willing to fight back against formidable adversaries. In 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation denied Turkey’s attempts to force the site to alter information about the Turkish government’s support for terrorist organizations. When Turkey blocked Wikipedia access in response, the Foundation took the case to the Turkish supreme court, and access was restored in January 2020 after the court ruled the ban violated human rights to freedom of expression. The Foundation has likewise resisted threats from the United States, refusing to submit to legal threats from the FBI in 2010 after they demanded Wikipedia stop using an image of the FBI seal,29 and in 2015 filing suit against the NSA over its upstream mass surveillance program</a></label><br><a href="https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/761/355/044/153/963/original/c3772c7510fedf56.png" rel="external">https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/761/355/044/153/963/original/c3772c7510fedf56.png</a></li><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/3831469">This isn't to say Wikipedia is impervious to influence. While obvious vandalism and heavy-handed manipulation attempts typically fail quickly, more subtle influence campaigns can succeed, at least for a time, by working within Wikipedia's rules and social dynamics. Coordinated editing campaigns have sometimes pushed biased content, particularly in areas of the project that attract less attention. Governments have been accused of attempting to manipulate Wikipedia to favor their interests or spread propaganda, while paid editing firms have manipulated articles about corporations and politicians. But Wikipedia's transparency makes manipulation visible and correctable: every edit is publicly logged, discussed, and reversible. And a decree by a government or billionaire does not ultimately determine what content stays or goes.While some news outlets and other entities have proven willing to back down in the face of threats and demands from powerful figures (or has lacked the resources to do anything but), Wikipedia has not. This resilience against control helps explain why figures like Musk find Wikipedia so infuriating. They can buy platforms, threaten lawsuits, or pressure advertisers, but they cannot simply purchase or coerce control over Wikipedia.</a></label><br><a href="https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/761/357/375/380/371/original/0e8640a1f2bf1e3e.png" rel="external">https://media.hachyderm.io/media_attachments/files/113/761/357/375/380/371/original/0e8640a1f2bf1e3e.png</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Molly White (molly0xfff@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 03-Jan-2025 08:30:08 JST Molly White
in reply to
Attacks on press freedom and free expression have become commonplace, even among the right’s self-described free speech champions. But neither Trump, Musk, nor anyone on the right can control Wikipedia as they wish.
#Wikipedia #ElonMusk #USpolitics #USpol
In conversationabout 2 months ago from hachyderm.iopermalink
Attachments

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice