5 ms·

Critics of this plan argued that this move would just result in more total censorship of Wikipedia and that access to some information was better than no

Critics of this plan argued that this move would just result in more total censorship of Wikipedia and that access to some information was better than no information at all I'm no critic of this plan but I still don't understand why this wouldn't result in more total censorship. Someone explain please?

samcheng 9y ago
If a censor can't tell which specific parts of wikipedia someone is trying to access, then they will be more likely to simply block the entire site. HTTPS encrypts the URL and the content, but does not mask the DNS lookup nor the server being connected to.
- enzolovesbacon 9y ago
  Yes, I understand that. I mean, why don't these censors block the whole wikipedia.org access then? If they don't want their population to access a Wikipedia topic/article and can't block/determine if someone is accessing it, the easiest thing to do would be just block it right away. So why they won't do it? (PS: I'm in no way in favor of censorship, I'm just trying to understand such mindset)
  - foota 9y ago
    Probably because they recognize the utility of Wikipedia.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      As with GitHub.
  - hannob 9y ago
    If you censor too much people may be pissed. It's much easier to decide "we censor specific articles about specific subjects" than "we censor all of wikipedia". Censoring a popular mainstream webpage may cause too much opposition. Maybe even the politicians who make the decision and their families like to look up things on wikipedia.
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      But can't they just download the Wikipedia backup, purge the articles they don't like, and redirect the DNS lookup to a local copy? To the average citizen, it won't look much different than going to actual Wikipedia.
      - FreeFull 9y ago
        This is feasible, assuming the government is willing to pay for the hosting.
        kijin 9y ago
        As well as forge an SSL certificate for *.wikipedia.org. Last time I checked, Wikipedia had HSTS enabled. So trying to forge their DNS without also forging their SSL certificate would be equivalent to total censorship for anybody who has previously visited Wikipedia.
        gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
        Assuming the government in question has access to a root certificate this should be possible.
        sqeaky 9y ago
        Even presuming it is possible, it still raises the cost of censorship. Simply raising that cost is a good thing.
    - jasonkostempski 9y ago
      Then https will force them to either extreme which I think is a good thing. No option to slowly raise the temperature so the frogs won't jump out of the pot.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Bakary 9y ago
    They are currently creating a Wikipedia clone in China so I'm guessing they are allowing wikipedia only on a temporary basis.
dTal 9y ago
Because Wikipedia is too useful. Note that it required a certain self-confidence that this was the case for Wikipedia to implement this strategy. And it's self-fulfilling - if Wikipedia allowed itself to be censored, then it would have fewer contributors and its usefulness would suffer. There's a rather interesting analogy to be made with the GPL here. Critics argue that companies shy away from it because they cannot control it. Yet its entire goal is to not be controlled, and it draws its strength from the conviction that the body of GPL software is too useful to ignore. And again, that's self-fulfilling. It takes courage, but it's important to know when you have the power to say "all of me, or none of me".
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Critics argue that companies shy away from it because they cannot control it. No, they don't. Critics point out that companies avoid it, and non-critics ascribe this avoidance to "can't control it", which is false, because nothing under a third-party copyright under any non-exclusive license can be controlled by the licensee, but businesses avoiding the GPL don't generally avoid all non-exclusive licenses.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    I think "can't control" refers to sublicensing in this context. People's dislike over copyleft stems from wanting to make software proprietary (or proprietary-friendly through lax licensing). Copyleft removes that control, and the GPL's main strength is that it is so ubiquitous that you cannot practically avoid it (in most cases).
  - dTal 9y ago
    Insofar as companies avoid it, they do so because it constrains their behaviour in some way. Call it what you will; my wording was perhaps sloppy. For the increasing number of companies that do participate in the GPL ecosystem, they do so because the opportunity cost of not participating outweighs the concomitant behavioural constraints. This produces a strong network effect as GPL software gains contributors, making GPL software more useful. Wikipedia's anti-censorship strategy is analogous in that the switch to HTTPS raised the opportunity cost of censorship to the loss of the entire Wikipedia "ecosystem", which for many regimes is more severe than the "cost" of not censoring. This too produces a network effect as Wikipedia gains more contributors, thus further increasing its value.

samcheng 9y ago

If a censor can't tell which specific parts of wikipedia someone is trying to access, then they will be more likely to simply block the entire site. HTTPS encrypts the URL and the content, but does not mask the DNS lookup nor the server being connected to.

enzolovesbacon 9y ago
Yes, I understand that. I mean, why don't these censors block the whole wikipedia.org access then? If they don't want their population to access a Wikipedia topic/article and can't block/determine if someone is accessing it, the easiest thing to do would be just block it right away. So why they won't do it? (PS: I'm in no way in favor of censorship, I'm just trying to understand such mindset)
- foota 9y ago
  Probably because they recognize the utility of Wikipedia.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    As with GitHub.
- hannob 9y ago
  If you censor too much people may be pissed. It's much easier to decide "we censor specific articles about specific subjects" than "we censor all of wikipedia". Censoring a popular mainstream webpage may cause too much opposition. Maybe even the politicians who make the decision and their families like to look up things on wikipedia.
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    But can't they just download the Wikipedia backup, purge the articles they don't like, and redirect the DNS lookup to a local copy? To the average citizen, it won't look much different than going to actual Wikipedia.
    - FreeFull 9y ago
      This is feasible, assuming the government is willing to pay for the hosting.
      - kijin 9y ago
        As well as forge an SSL certificate for *.wikipedia.org. Last time I checked, Wikipedia had HSTS enabled. So trying to forge their DNS without also forging their SSL certificate would be equivalent to total censorship for anybody who has previously visited Wikipedia.
        gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
        Assuming the government in question has access to a root certificate this should be possible.
        sqeaky 9y ago
        Even presuming it is possible, it still raises the cost of censorship. Simply raising that cost is a good thing.
  - jasonkostempski 9y ago
    Then https will force them to either extreme which I think is a good thing. No option to slowly raise the temperature so the frogs won't jump out of the pot.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Bakary 9y ago
  They are currently creating a Wikipedia clone in China so I'm guessing they are allowing wikipedia only on a temporary basis.

dTal 9y ago

Because Wikipedia is too useful. Note that it required a certain self-confidence that this was the case for Wikipedia to implement this strategy. And it's self-fulfilling - if Wikipedia allowed itself to be censored, then it would have fewer contributors and its usefulness would suffer. There's a rather interesting analogy to be made with the GPL here. Critics argue that companies shy away from it because they cannot control it. Yet its entire goal is to not be controlled, and it draws its strength from the conviction that the body of GPL software is too useful to ignore. And again, that's self-fulfilling. It takes courage, but it's important to know when you have the power to say "all of me, or none of me".

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Critics argue that companies shy away from it because they cannot control it. No, they don't. Critics point out that companies avoid it, and non-critics ascribe this avoidance to "can't control it", which is false, because nothing under a third-party copyright under any non-exclusive license can be controlled by the licensee, but businesses avoiding the GPL don't generally avoid all non-exclusive licenses.
- cyphar 9y ago
  I think "can't control" refers to sublicensing in this context. People's dislike over copyleft stems from wanting to make software proprietary (or proprietary-friendly through lax licensing). Copyleft removes that control, and the GPL's main strength is that it is so ubiquitous that you cannot practically avoid it (in most cases).
- dTal 9y ago
  Insofar as companies avoid it, they do so because it constrains their behaviour in some way. Call it what you will; my wording was perhaps sloppy. For the increasing number of companies that do participate in the GPL ecosystem, they do so because the opportunity cost of not participating outweighs the concomitant behavioural constraints. This produces a strong network effect as GPL software gains contributors, making GPL software more useful. Wikipedia's anti-censorship strategy is analogous in that the switch to HTTPS raised the opportunity cost of censorship to the loss of the entire Wikipedia "ecosystem", which for many regimes is more severe than the "cost" of not censoring. This too produces a network effect as Wikipedia gains more contributors, thus further increasing its value.