Social Actions

Let's be honest here. Can a user actually love, favorite, view, follow, and comment without breaking 3.5 of the ToU?
Dhuls's Wiki Icon.png Dhuls (Talk|922 Contributions|Scratch) 01:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, these features, though included in scratchclient, should not be listed on the Scratch Wiki since using them breaks the ToU. Yes Support for removing them
Leahcimto scratch profile picture.png leahcimto talkcontribsprofile 21:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
No No support. Making Scratch Crash breaks the Terms of Use, but it still exists. Same with Making Invisible Code. Just because something breaks the Terms of Use, does not mean that is an excuse to remove it. There should be a warning telling users that executing the code in a way that breaks the Terms of Use can get the user an alert or a ban.
TheTrillion's Profile Picture.png  TheTrillion • Talk • 2,624 contributions • Scratch  21:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't entirely understand the subject of the article, but assuming I don't need to, Yes Support. This would definitely break the Terms of Use, so the Scratch Wiki shouldn't be telling people how to do this.
Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 04:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
There are plenty of tutorials online about how to make bombs, an illegal action that is nonetheless documented with the clear warning that such things are documented for the sake of learning. Our policy with this kind of thing is keep it if it's otherwise a legitimate contribution, unless the Scratch Team specifically requests we remove it. No No support unless a Scratch Team member specifically says to remove it.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
03:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I guess Kenny2scratch and TheTrillion have a point. I'm going to change my opinion to No No Support.
Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 07:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
After thinking about it for a while, I think I'm going to have to agree with TheTrillion and Kenny2scratch here. As long as it's clear we're not condoning the actions, I don't think it's bad to just include the information along with a warning. Of course, as Kenny2scratch mentioned, if the Scratch Team specifically asks us to remove it, then that's a different story. :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk ▪︎ contribs 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I also agree that there is educational value to explaining how to use the API. While we shouldn't explain how to do anything that would be a security or privacy breach, I think that users can benefit from learning how the API of the site works and how to use it (for example, if making suggestions that involve these APIs, an example to follow for designing their own site, etc.). In this case there isn't a security or privacy breach, so I don't see any harm as long as we include the disclaimer. But of course as others have said, if the Scratch Team asks us to remove it, we will remove it without protest.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.