5 ms·

As someone involved in running a site which India blocked [0] in the winter of 2014, I have no love for the India government. That said, is it possible that you

by scurvy 10y ago

As someone involved in running a site which India blocked [0] in the winter of 2014, I have no love for the India government. That said, is it possible that you're confusing corruption and cronyism with a lack of free speech? [0] https://techcrunch.com/2014/12/31/indian-government-censorsht/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/12/31/indian-government-censorsh...

throwawayIndian 10y ago
> is it possible that you're confusing corruption and cronyism with a lack of free speech? It is possible. It is also possible that they got corruption, cronyism and lack of free speech all at the same time. :-)
varunom 10y ago
>>> The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by Anti Terrorism Squad, and were carrying Anti India content from ISIS. This was the reason of block. No doubt blocking the whole site (especially if it's a platform/user curated content site) isn't intelligent response, but it only indicates incompetence (and not blanket ban on free speech) on behalf of some officials as many of them may still not have good understanding of how the latest web stuff works.
- scurvy 10y ago
  That was the PR cover. In reality, it was a power grab by the Indian government. How do I know this? Because we repeatedly asked them for the list objectionable content. Chances are that it violated our ToS, and we would take it down without protest. Problem was, they never told us anything. There was no terrorist content. It was all a front. In the end, they wanted us to pledge fealty to India, and take down any content that they (Indian bureaucrats) found objectionable. We refused, and in the end, the hubbub was too much for them and they removed the blocks. They wanted the ability to take down content that criticized the government, the PM, their government office, anything positive to Pakistan, etc. It was a power move to squash free speech, and they backed down. Terrorism was just a false flag.
  - kartD 10y ago
    Right, I doubt there's any conclusion that can be drawn from a single piece of anecdotal data, especially one that makes as significant leaps of logic as yours.
    - scurvy 10y ago
      Leap of logic? Howso? It's fact. I fail to see how a presentation of facts (one you might not like) ends up being a leap of logic.
      - kartD 10y ago
        I like how a single data point, now constitutes fact. All it shows is government high-handedness. > In the end, they wanted us to pledge fealty to India, and take down any content that they (Indian bureaucrats) found objectionable. We refused, and in the end, the hubbub was too much for them and they removed the blocks. Really, was this stated anywhere or did you just see this way? > They wanted the ability to take down content that criticized the government, the PM, their government office, anything positive to Pakistan, etc. It was a power move to squash free speech, and they backed down. Terrorism was just a false flag. Any evidence for this ? And are you sure you're attributing to malice what is likely incompetence. India banned GitHub for a couple of days
        scurvy 10y ago
        Yes, their emails were pretty clear about what they wanted. They wanted exactly what I stated. Why is this so hard to believe? You say it's an anecdote and that's no good. What else are you looking for? Testimonials are pretty compelling for most people. It seems your faith in the Indian government will never be changed, and that this has left the realm of facts and entered one of nationalism. Good day.
        kartD 10y ago
        What faith have I displayed? I haven't defended their actions. I stated I feel it's incompetence rather than malice. My issue is using a single testimonial to come to an overall conclusion, which I'm sure you agree is incorrect. You seem emotional, which I understand since it affected your website, but you should note I haven't displayed any nationalism.
mey 10y ago
If the effect is the same, isn't it still lack of free speech?

by scurvy 10y ago

throwawayIndian 10y ago

> is it possible that you're confusing corruption and cronyism with a lack of free speech? It is possible. It is also possible that they got corruption, cronyism and lack of free speech all at the same time. :-)

varunom 10y ago

>>> The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by Anti Terrorism Squad, and were carrying Anti India content from ISIS. This was the reason of block. No doubt blocking the whole site (especially if it's a platform/user curated content site) isn't intelligent response, but it only indicates incompetence (and not blanket ban on free speech) on behalf of some officials as many of them may still not have good understanding of how the latest web stuff works.

scurvy 10y ago
That was the PR cover. In reality, it was a power grab by the Indian government. How do I know this? Because we repeatedly asked them for the list objectionable content. Chances are that it violated our ToS, and we would take it down without protest. Problem was, they never told us anything. There was no terrorist content. It was all a front. In the end, they wanted us to pledge fealty to India, and take down any content that they (Indian bureaucrats) found objectionable. We refused, and in the end, the hubbub was too much for them and they removed the blocks. They wanted the ability to take down content that criticized the government, the PM, their government office, anything positive to Pakistan, etc. It was a power move to squash free speech, and they backed down. Terrorism was just a false flag.
- kartD 10y ago
  Right, I doubt there's any conclusion that can be drawn from a single piece of anecdotal data, especially one that makes as significant leaps of logic as yours.
  - scurvy 10y ago
    Leap of logic? Howso? It's fact. I fail to see how a presentation of facts (one you might not like) ends up being a leap of logic.
    - kartD 10y ago
      I like how a single data point, now constitutes fact. All it shows is government high-handedness. > In the end, they wanted us to pledge fealty to India, and take down any content that they (Indian bureaucrats) found objectionable. We refused, and in the end, the hubbub was too much for them and they removed the blocks. Really, was this stated anywhere or did you just see this way? > They wanted the ability to take down content that criticized the government, the PM, their government office, anything positive to Pakistan, etc. It was a power move to squash free speech, and they backed down. Terrorism was just a false flag. Any evidence for this ? And are you sure you're attributing to malice what is likely incompetence. India banned GitHub for a couple of days
      - scurvy 10y ago
        Yes, their emails were pretty clear about what they wanted. They wanted exactly what I stated. Why is this so hard to believe? You say it's an anecdote and that's no good. What else are you looking for? Testimonials are pretty compelling for most people. It seems your faith in the Indian government will never be changed, and that this has left the realm of facts and entered one of nationalism. Good day.
        kartD 10y ago
        What faith have I displayed? I haven't defended their actions. I stated I feel it's incompetence rather than malice. My issue is using a single testimonial to come to an overall conclusion, which I'm sure you agree is incorrect. You seem emotional, which I understand since it affected your website, but you should note I haven't displayed any nationalism.

mey 10y ago

If the effect is the same, isn't it still lack of free speech?