Talk:The Pirate Bay: Difference between revisions
Add topicLatest comment: 22 February by Keith in topic Relevance
→Relevance: new section |
→Relevance: Reply |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Relevance == | ==Relevance== | ||
This article does not seem relevant to the core intention of the Consumer Rights Wiki, which intends to catalog instances of consumer right violations. In addition, one wonders if an article discussing The Pirate Bay is sound strategy for a website whose mission is vulnerable to regular malignment due to allegations of rights infringements. I would nominate this subject as ineligible for coverage without evidence of consumer right violations. This is not Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/76.78.60.180|76.78.60.180]] 21:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC) | This article does not seem relevant to the core intention of the Consumer Rights Wiki, which intends to catalog instances of consumer right violations. In addition, one wonders if an article discussing The Pirate Bay is sound strategy for a website whose mission is vulnerable to regular malignment due to allegations of rights infringements. I would nominate this subject as ineligible for coverage without evidence of consumer right violations. This is not Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/76.78.60.180|76.78.60.180]] 21:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC) | ||
:I'd tend to agree here, regardless of the impact on us it's just not something that's really relevant to consumer protection unless you really zoom out and squint. it also doesn't really have 'consumers' in the traditional sense, as it's not selling anything. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 12:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:30, 22 February 2026
Relevance
[edit source]This article does not seem relevant to the core intention of the Consumer Rights Wiki, which intends to catalog instances of consumer right violations. In addition, one wonders if an article discussing The Pirate Bay is sound strategy for a website whose mission is vulnerable to regular malignment due to allegations of rights infringements. I would nominate this subject as ineligible for coverage without evidence of consumer right violations. This is not Wikipedia. 76.78.60.180 21:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree here, regardless of the impact on us it's just not something that's really relevant to consumer protection unless you really zoom out and squint. it also doesn't really have 'consumers' in the traditional sense, as it's not selling anything. Keith (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)