Wikipedia receives hundreds of legal demands every year to remove user-written content.

[eff@mastodon.social]

Wikipedia receives hundreds of legal demands every year to remove user-written content. Almost all are rejected. We spoke with Wikimedia’s legal team about how Section 230 helps protect volunteer editors and public knowledge. https://www.eff.org/pages/internet-still-works-wikipedia-defends-its-editors

[martinbe@mastodon.social]

@eff And what protects people from unwanted creation of informations about them? What if someone doesn't want any information about them published on wiki pages? I know a case where an article was written despite the explicit objection of the person about whom it was written. People have the right to object. And they don't even have to explain their decisions. No means no, and that's it. And that should be respected. Firstly should be asked for permission and only then written. Not otherwise.

[freekymage@ieji.de]

@MartinBe @eff so everything needs to be policed according to you. That would mean that sites such as this would barely exist because they don't have the money to fight when they get dragged to court or they need automated censorship because anyone in the world can decide to take your message down.
If lies have been written about you, you can sue that person, but not the website. Of course this is different for blatantly illegal things like for example CSAM

[martinbe@mastodon.social]

@freekymage First of all. Do not put your words into my mouth. Secondly.. Reading with understanding doesn't hurt anybody yet.
Cool, they don't have a money, but some unaware people must have planty of for suing some idiot who wasn't even authorized to write something about someone? And you think that's fine.
How about a simple thing called respect against people? Respecting the fact that someone doesn't want such articles in a first place.
Think a little bit before you write next time.

@eff

[rationalwiki@mstdn.social]

@eff It doesn't work for small websites that are registered in US states without strong anti-SLAPP laws and who don't have enough funds to hire a lawyer. Case in point: RationalWiki, censored by an out-of-court settlement with eugenics activists.