5 ms·

I do find this to be disgusting, but I'd like to point out Wikipedia articles have become quite biased in the past years. If content was based on purely factua

by dataker 11y ago

I do find this to be disgusting, but I'd like to point out Wikipedia articles have become quite biased in the past years. If content was based on purely factual information and opinions were contrasted/highlighted, Russia would have a much harder time finding a suitable argument.

drdaeman 11y ago
Doesn't matter. Even if Wikipedia would be full of outright lies it still won't justify censorship and blocking. But considering your argument, now it at least makes sense why the Absurdopedia was blocked among the first sites, hah. /s
- osipov 11y ago
  >it still won't justify censorship and blocking do you deny countries the legal right to set their own limitations on free speech?
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    That is the prevailing attitude here, that there should not be any limitations.
    - osipov 11y ago
      Those are our ideals but the reality is that countries have long restricted free speech. And each countries makes its own judgements and decisions on what kind of speech can and should be restricted. Personally I find "free speech zones" in the US disgusting.
      - viraptor 11y ago
        That's how reality works. Our ideals are that people don't murder each other. Even if they do, it's not a reason to throw away the concept and agree that some murdering is ok since people do it anyway. So yeah - free speech is a thing we should aim for. Some disrespect it more than others and Russia is definitely not a great example to follow.
  - steve19 11y ago
    Yes. Yes I Do. If Free Speech is defined as "whatever the government deems free speech" then the word itself becomes, at best, meaningless or, at worst, the twisted definition becomes itself a form of oppression. "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." - 1984 Free Speech is an absolute. Every country falls short of it in some respect, but that does not detract from the concept.
  - schoen 11y ago
    This feels like one of the kinds of questions where people on HN and elsewhere have started to feel the need to say "I'm genuinely curious..." because otherwise they fear people will assume that it's a rhetorical question. I assumed that the parent comment was genuinely curious about whether people in this discussion think that governments should be allowed to set their own limitations on free speech. I've spent a lot of time helping people find technical means to access things that local legislation says they shouldn't, and promoting the work of people who do that, so apparently I think the answer is no. But I think most people worldwide tend to think the answer is yes, so it wouldn't be so unreasonable to parse the parent post as a question about what people in the discussion think.
  - drdaeman 11y ago
    Well, not like I can deny this (that would be denying a matter of fact), but yes - my personal opinion is that I strongly disagree they should have such right. Not like my opinion matters, though. Another issue is, this is not even a limitation of someone's free speech, but limitation of my rights to read. I believe it's an important distinction.
frozenport 11y ago
>>Russia would have a much harder time finding a suitable argument Arguments are for systems where there are dissenting voices. In blocking Wikipedia, they silence those voices. They are choosing between displaying information critical of their government and not displaying that information. They could block it for having information about drugs (like Reddit) but that is not at all what this discussion is about.
osipov 11y ago
>Wikipedia articles have become quite biased in the past years. don't know why OP is getting downvoted because this reflects my observation as well i trace the systemic bias in wikipedia to an equivalent bias in the English language media and wikipedia's policy of reliable sources. the latter is a doubly edged sword that keeps out the crackpots but also ignores reasoned dissenting voices that come from outside the corporate media circle.
- schoen 11y ago
  Maybe people were offended that someone would criticize Wikipedia in this way in the context of news about censorship against it, the idea being that it's rude to bring up problems with a site's content just as the site is about to be censored. Personally I think problems of bias on Wikipedia are an interesting issue that can be hard to deal with, because many Wikipedians have assumed that the elaborately-worked out policies about point of view, reliable sources, and citations have already addressed this. But maybe in many contexts these policies don't work well or don't achieve their goals well (and there are lots of ways that could be so, some of which are already identified within the Wikipedia community but not necessarily solved). I assume the downvotes have to do with the implication that it's legitimate to block Internet content that is biased, rather than with the assertion that Wikipedia content is sometimes or increasingly biased.

by dataker 11y ago

drdaeman 11y ago

Doesn't matter. Even if Wikipedia would be full of outright lies it still won't justify censorship and blocking. But considering your argument, now it at least makes sense why the Absurdopedia was blocked among the first sites, hah. /s

osipov 11y ago
>it still won't justify censorship and blocking do you deny countries the legal right to set their own limitations on free speech?
- tedunangst 11y ago
  That is the prevailing attitude here, that there should not be any limitations.
  - osipov 11y ago
    Those are our ideals but the reality is that countries have long restricted free speech. And each countries makes its own judgements and decisions on what kind of speech can and should be restricted. Personally I find "free speech zones" in the US disgusting.
    - viraptor 11y ago
      That's how reality works. Our ideals are that people don't murder each other. Even if they do, it's not a reason to throw away the concept and agree that some murdering is ok since people do it anyway. So yeah - free speech is a thing we should aim for. Some disrespect it more than others and Russia is definitely not a great example to follow.
- steve19 11y ago
  Yes. Yes I Do. If Free Speech is defined as "whatever the government deems free speech" then the word itself becomes, at best, meaningless or, at worst, the twisted definition becomes itself a form of oppression. "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." - 1984 Free Speech is an absolute. Every country falls short of it in some respect, but that does not detract from the concept.
- schoen 11y ago
  This feels like one of the kinds of questions where people on HN and elsewhere have started to feel the need to say "I'm genuinely curious..." because otherwise they fear people will assume that it's a rhetorical question. I assumed that the parent comment was genuinely curious about whether people in this discussion think that governments should be allowed to set their own limitations on free speech. I've spent a lot of time helping people find technical means to access things that local legislation says they shouldn't, and promoting the work of people who do that, so apparently I think the answer is no. But I think most people worldwide tend to think the answer is yes, so it wouldn't be so unreasonable to parse the parent post as a question about what people in the discussion think.
- drdaeman 11y ago
  Well, not like I can deny this (that would be denying a matter of fact), but yes - my personal opinion is that I strongly disagree they should have such right. Not like my opinion matters, though. Another issue is, this is not even a limitation of someone's free speech, but limitation of my rights to read. I believe it's an important distinction.

frozenport 11y ago

>>Russia would have a much harder time finding a suitable argument Arguments are for systems where there are dissenting voices. In blocking Wikipedia, they silence those voices. They are choosing between displaying information critical of their government and not displaying that information. They could block it for having information about drugs (like Reddit) but that is not at all what this discussion is about.

osipov 11y ago

>Wikipedia articles have become quite biased in the past years. don't know why OP is getting downvoted because this reflects my observation as well i trace the systemic bias in wikipedia to an equivalent bias in the English language media and wikipedia's policy of reliable sources. the latter is a doubly edged sword that keeps out the crackpots but also ignores reasoned dissenting voices that come from outside the corporate media circle.

schoen 11y ago
Maybe people were offended that someone would criticize Wikipedia in this way in the context of news about censorship against it, the idea being that it's rude to bring up problems with a site's content just as the site is about to be censored. Personally I think problems of bias on Wikipedia are an interesting issue that can be hard to deal with, because many Wikipedians have assumed that the elaborately-worked out policies about point of view, reliable sources, and citations have already addressed this. But maybe in many contexts these policies don't work well or don't achieve their goals well (and there are lots of ways that could be so, some of which are already identified within the Wikipedia community but not necessarily solved). I assume the downvotes have to do with the implication that it's legitimate to block Internet content that is biased, rather than with the assertion that Wikipedia content is sometimes or increasingly biased.