4 ms·

"Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has degraded Wikipedia services in the country on account of not blocking / removing sacrilegious contents. Wikiped

"Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has degraded Wikipedia services in the country on account of not blocking / removing sacrilegious contents. Wikipedia was approached for blocking / removal of the said contents by issuing a notice under applicable law and court order(s). An opportunity of hearing was also provided, however, the platform neither complied by removing the blasphemous content nor appeared before the Authority. Given the intentional failure on part of the platform to comply with the directions of PTA, the services of Wikipedia have been degraded for 48 hours with the direction to block / remove the reported contents. In case of non-compliance by Wikipedia the platform will be blocked within Pakistan. The restoration of the services of Wikipedia will be reconsidered subject to blocking / removal of the reported unlawful contents. PTA is committed to ensuring a safe online experience for all Pakistani citizens according to local laws."

beardyw 4y ago
I am trying to think why Wikipedia would care about this. They offer a free service - if you don't want it that's just disappointing.
- brmgb 4y ago
  Then everyone in Pakistan gets deprived of a valuable source of knowledge on virtue of their government being obscurantist.
  - dncornholio 4y ago
    The people who actually care are the Pakistani people. Let them fight it. Wikipedia can and should just keep doing what its doing.
- kemayo 4y ago
  An ideological commitment to free knowledge, mostly. It's upsetting to be cut off from people who could use it.
  - hulitu 4y ago
    It would be nice if it would be free knowledge. But, like the rest of the internet, wikipedia became a victim of people with an agenda (to not say 3 letter agencies).
- jl6 4y ago
  They might care that Pakistani Wikipedia editors and readers alike could find themselves targeted by the Pakistani authorities.
  - kibwen 4y ago
    By that argument, HN should remove any comment that mentions Tianenmen Square, so that readers in China do not find themselves targeted by the CCP.
    - jl6 4y ago
      I am certainly not arguing for censorship of Wikipedia, I’m just responding to the comment asking why Wikipedia would care about this situation.
  - kspacewalk2 4y ago
    Okay, they might care. But they won't care in a way that causes them to censor anything, so it's a moot point. Pakistan is just not going to affect the editorial policy of Wikipedia. They know this, so they made a decision to block the site. Oh well, sucks for Pakistanis, and since it's a democracy, all I can say is - elect better governments.
- skitter 4y ago
  Because people who don't want to access Wikipedia already can decide to not access it, but the ones who want to can't. Pakistan is not a singular person.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  They don't care. They know people can get around the blocks. Wikipedia is more valuable with accurate content, even if some countries make it harder to access.
  - 131012 4y ago
    May I suggest they really do care about the situation and this is why they refuse to block anything.
  - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
    I don't know regarding Pakistan, but it isn't true that they generally don't care: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/06/13/wikimedia-foundation-appeals-russian-court-decision-on-removal-of-wikipedia-information-related-to-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/06/13/wikimedia-fo...
- unixlikeposting 4y ago
  They also offer a paid service, with Google notably a customer.
- psyfi 4y ago
  Because the law of a country (a very populated country) prohibits it. In the same sense they supposedly would remove whatever violates hate speech laws or copyright laws in some other countries that the ones they operate in.
  - dctoedt 4y ago
    > Because the law of a country (a very populated country) prohibits it s/law/rulers/g
    - hulitu 4y ago
      > s/law/rulers/g You don't need to replace them. They are equivalent.
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        There is a major difference between "rule of law" and "rule of rulers". Yes, rulers make laws. No, that's not the same as the rule of law.
robofanatic 4y ago
> PTA is committed to ensuring a safe online experience for all Pakistani citizens according to local laws. How would Pakistani citizens be unsafe if that content remains? will there be total chaos? riots? more suicide bombings?
- ParrotRaj 4y ago
  Citizens would read blashpemous material, commit blashpemy and then will be lynched by the crowd Wish it was a joke but sadly lynching due to alleged blashpemy is a huge issue in pakistan. Recently a Sri Lankan citizen was burned alive with a few hundred witnesses who just watched.

beardyw 4y ago

I am trying to think why Wikipedia would care about this. They offer a free service - if you don't want it that's just disappointing.

brmgb 4y ago
Then everyone in Pakistan gets deprived of a valuable source of knowledge on virtue of their government being obscurantist.
- dncornholio 4y ago
  The people who actually care are the Pakistani people. Let them fight it. Wikipedia can and should just keep doing what its doing.
kemayo 4y ago
An ideological commitment to free knowledge, mostly. It's upsetting to be cut off from people who could use it.
- hulitu 4y ago
  It would be nice if it would be free knowledge. But, like the rest of the internet, wikipedia became a victim of people with an agenda (to not say 3 letter agencies).
jl6 4y ago
They might care that Pakistani Wikipedia editors and readers alike could find themselves targeted by the Pakistani authorities.
- kibwen 4y ago
  By that argument, HN should remove any comment that mentions Tianenmen Square, so that readers in China do not find themselves targeted by the CCP.
  - jl6 4y ago
    I am certainly not arguing for censorship of Wikipedia, I’m just responding to the comment asking why Wikipedia would care about this situation.
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  Okay, they might care. But they won't care in a way that causes them to censor anything, so it's a moot point. Pakistan is just not going to affect the editorial policy of Wikipedia. They know this, so they made a decision to block the site. Oh well, sucks for Pakistanis, and since it's a democracy, all I can say is - elect better governments.
skitter 4y ago
Because people who don't want to access Wikipedia already can decide to not access it, but the ones who want to can't. Pakistan is not a singular person.
throwaway09223 4y ago
They don't care. They know people can get around the blocks. Wikipedia is more valuable with accurate content, even if some countries make it harder to access.
- 131012 4y ago
  May I suggest they really do care about the situation and this is why they refuse to block anything.
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  I don't know regarding Pakistan, but it isn't true that they generally don't care: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/06/13/wikimedia-foundation-appeals-russian-court-decision-on-removal-of-wikipedia-information-related-to-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/06/13/wikimedia-fo...
unixlikeposting 4y ago
They also offer a paid service, with Google notably a customer.
psyfi 4y ago
Because the law of a country (a very populated country) prohibits it. In the same sense they supposedly would remove whatever violates hate speech laws or copyright laws in some other countries that the ones they operate in.
- dctoedt 4y ago
  > Because the law of a country (a very populated country) prohibits it s/law/rulers/g
  - hulitu 4y ago
    > s/law/rulers/g You don't need to replace them. They are equivalent.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      There is a major difference between "rule of law" and "rule of rulers". Yes, rulers make laws. No, that's not the same as the rule of law.

robofanatic 4y ago

> PTA is committed to ensuring a safe online experience for all Pakistani citizens according to local laws. How would Pakistani citizens be unsafe if that content remains? will there be total chaos? riots? more suicide bombings?

ParrotRaj 4y ago
Citizens would read blashpemous material, commit blashpemy and then will be lynched by the crowd Wish it was a joke but sadly lynching due to alleged blashpemy is a huge issue in pakistan. Recently a Sri Lankan citizen was burned alive with a few hundred witnesses who just watched.