Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2016 June 30

= June 30 =

White-hat Gray-hat hacking
Suppose you've been wrongfully blocked from a social network for expressing legitimate political views -- is there any known technique by which you can unblock yourself against their will? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Unlike Wikipedia, twitter and most (all?) other social networks can block anyone for any reason or for no reason at all. Your question about block evasion is enough to get you kicked off of every major social network. Major websites generally have good enough security to stop you from doing what you want to do. Why not get your own web page where you can express any opinion you wish and where you can be the person doing the blocking? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If you were "wrongfully blocked" and you expressed a "legitimate political view", then most services have a means to review and undo a block. The problem is that everyone who gets blocked assumes that they are wrongfully blocked. Further, everyone assumes that their political views are legitimate. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, in terms of political views, almost all of them ARE in fact legitimate as per US law -- so, with very narrow exceptions (such as for incitement to terrorism), blocking a person for expressing these IS wrongful. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No it's not. You are getting two very distinct concepts mixed up, and this is actually quite a common misconception. "Freedom of Speech" does NOT mean anyone has an obligation to give you a platform for your views. No "social network" has any obligation whatsoever to "broadcast" your "legitimate political views", or give you a platform to do so, just as much as CNN has absolutely NO obligation to give you air time on TV. Removing your "legitimate views" from THEIR website and banning you from THEIR website is NOT the same thing as "blocking a person from expressing their views". You can express your views all you like, just not on someone elses' website. NO ONE owes you a platform to express your views, whether it be a publication, a radio, a website or anything else. Vespine (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, even here on wikipedia we don't give you a platform to air your political views, whatever they are. There's some tolerance for limited expression of views, but the primary purpose of wikipedia is to build an encyclopaedia and if you're mainly here to air political views and you don't stop airing them when asked, you will likely be blocked even if your views are fairly innocous. Although our blocking isn't so effective, if you do re-appear and we notice, we will generally block you again. We don't care if you claim your "freedom of speech" or "first amendment" rights are violated, you're hardly the first but there's no freedom of speech or first amendment rights on wikipedia. (While "Time, place, and manner" restrictions are allowed for the government these must still be limited but for us just as with content ones it's up to us.) Basically as Guy Macon said, if you can't find a platform which welcomes your expression of views (although I actually find this hard to believe), you'll have to make your own website, perhaps even hosting it yourself if really needed. Your freedom of speech or first amendment rights do mean the US government most likely can't shut it down. Nil Einne (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WRONG -- freedom of expression applies EVERYWHERE in the USA, and NOBODY can block these merely for their content! In other words, if you have a legitimate account on a network, they CANNOT pick and choose which views you're allowed to broadcast!  And BTW, this is not about me personally (in fact, I am NOT currently blocked by anyone) -- this is about the systematic efforts by Twit and Farcebook to silence Trump supporters, anti-jihadists and right-wing activists generally (in particular, about the recent blatantly illegal block of Pamela Geller's account on Farcebook)! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Except no one including the courts agree with you.... Nil Einne (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They did in the case of Pamela Geller's ads on the MTA -- the judge said it's not just free speech, but "core political speech which deserves the highest level of protection" (his words, not mine)! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Except the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) is a public benefit corporation (i.e. a state government party) not a private company so rules surrounding "designated public forum"s or "limited public forum"s easily come into play  . Interestingly Pamela Geller's own website says "foul language, as well as abusive, hateful, libelous and genocidal posts, will be deleted" even though only the last two are perhaps clearly allowed under the 1st amendment and her stuff gets in trouble precisely because people see them as violating the second and third. (Maybe these are required by Discus but she's free to use her own comment system.)  Nil Einne (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The IP's willingness to WP:SOAPBOX on Wikipedia is a bit concerning... ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If I'm soapboxing, I'm not the one to start doing so! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be here to get a question answered, you seem to be here to argue. You were given an answer, and you don't like it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you should complain. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My issue is with the implication that not all political views are legitimate -- not with the answer to my actual question! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC) Except no one including the courts agrees with you.... I presume you know this since your talking about hacking rather than suing to enforce your supposed legal rights. And Trump who wants to reduce first amendment protections likes to talk about suing plus Pamela Geller wouldn't exactly have problems crowdfunding a courtcase. So there is ample opportunity to test this discredited legal theory (even Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins doesn't rely on US federal constitutional protections. So the only logical conclusion is you are trolling.... Nil Einne (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * A word of advice: If you continue expressing your views, and confront everyone who doesn't agree with you or points out a mistake in your reasoning, you will most likely be blocked for being disruptive. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)