23 ms·
Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court
- java-man 2y agoWhy is it blocked worldwide? Should the page be geofenced instead?
- gigel82 2y agoI agree, this makes no sense. Can the "Russian High Court" block access to all pages mentioning the invasion of Ukraine and Wikipedia will just comply worldwide?
- big-green-man 2y agoSovereignty isn't fungible. India's ability to coerce worldwide is significantly higher than Russia's right now.
- ivanmontillam 2y agoThat's need to end.
- okasaki 2y agoBut when the US government orders a Taiwanese company to stop selling chips to a Chinese company that's just fine right?
- chx 2y agoThey don't quite do that. You will notice they only order US companies to do so. ASML, however, abides by U.S. export control regulations because that was a requirement for the approval of the acquisition of SVG. Everything flows from there.
- big-green-man 2y agoIt can't end. Each sovereign entity is unique, and they interact in an anarchy. There's no way to get kings to treat Moldova the way they treat the united States.
- 0x457 2y agoWell, yes, they can. Just because some court ruling tells you to do something doesn't magically makes you do it. You have a choice to ignore that rulling and (maybe) face consequences: - fine(s) - arrest(s) - asset confiscation If WMF has no physical presence in Russia - there is no way to enforce this ruling and can be "ignored".
- jprete 2y agoIf the court order specifies that it be taken down worldwide, and the court order isn't definitely illegal according to Indian law, and the Wikimedia Foundation has operations in India that they want to preserve, they may not have a choice.
- mouse_ 2y agoI get that pulling out of India would be an incredibly difficult move to even consider. But abandoning all principles should be as well.
- okasaki 2y agoWhy is following other countries' laws viewed as "abandoning all principles"? A few days ago Linux removed all Russian maintainers to follow US laws. Has the Linux Foundation abandoned all principles? Should they have fought the US government?
- stoperaticless 2y agoUS laws is not “other countries” laws. Linus lives in US. … and Finland is on the same side as US anyway, might have similar views. Btw. Did Linux ban all Russian speaking people or Russian citizen or people with Russian IP addresses?
- dekhn 2y agoThe intent was to remove people of any nationality who work for Russian companies from being kernel maintainers. The way they rolled that out didn't match their intent, though.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- alwayslikethis 2y agoIn some sense, they did. The spirit of free software is inherently pro-freedom and against any external actors being able to pressure your entity into submission. This includes any and all legal threats or orders. Look at the history of PGP for an instance of fighting the US government to defend a greater principle. In practice you can't fight everyone all at once. On the net it may be better to compromise on some to defend others you cherish more.
- tastyfreeze 2y agoSimilar to the enigma of how a court case in India blocks sci-hub from adding new papers for other countries?
- nimish 2y agoThat's on sci-hub actually, Elbakyan seems to think that an Indian court ruling is something that matters so much that she crippled sci-hub for it. She could turn it back on whenever she wants. contra mundum court orders aren't new however, the Brits like to issue them with varying levels of success.
- anigbrowl 2y agoProbably because Wikipedia is a party to the case rather than a disinterested bystander.
- jprete 2y agoThis article might be more informative although I can't say how accurate it is: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wikipedia-suspends-access-to-ani-defamation-case-page-following-delhi-hc-order/article68778075.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wikipedia-suspends-ac...
- mrlongroots 2y agoSome context that is essentially personal opinion, take it for what it's worth: It's not that ANI is an absolutely non-partisan and an objective outlet. They do lean pro-government, but the yardstick being applied here is not consistent at all. No Indian news outlet is great by that yardstick, but one is being called an absolute sham, and those who consistently take anti-establishment stances, often without merit, barely get a footnote. Now you could argue that Wikipedia is volunteer-driven, and you could submit an edit, but it is hard. During the farmers' protests ~3 years ago, articles were worded in a manner that led one to believe that deaths by natural causes among the protestors were somehow caused by the protests. I just checked the article as I was writing this response, and there is still a detailed section titled "fatalities" that mostly documents deaths from natural causes. I tried sending in edits for some of this back in the day but faced an uphill battle against other contributors and gave up because I had a day job to get to. None of this justifies a page being blocked, especially outside Indian jurisdiction, but it would be unwise to ignore the broader context about the website being an ideological battleground and not being able to pull off the right balance.
- albert_e 2y ago> those who consistently take anti-establishment stances, often without merit, barely get a footnote "anti-establishment" as in holding the government accountable and asking questions of them -- irrespective of which party is in power? isn't that the job of news media? if they are doing it consistently - good on them. why does it need a footnote or disclaimer? I am sure there is enough content to file under a "Controversies and Crticism" section on the page of every anti-establishment media house. Volunteers are free to add.
- 2y ago
- asimpleusecase 2y agohttps://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wikipedia-suspends-access-to-ani-defamation-case-page-following-delhi-hc-order/article68778075.ece/amp/ https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wikipedia-suspends-ac... Here is an article from India with some of the story
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- redrix 2y agohttp://archive.today/XIxZv http://archive.today/XIxZv
- numbers 2y agoFrom the removed article: At the time of the suit's filing, the Wikipedia article about ANI said the news agency had "been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on multiple occasions". The filing accused Wikipedia of publishing "false and defamatory content with the malicious intent of tarnishing the news agency's reputation, and aimed to discredit its goodwill". The filing argued that Wikipedia "is a platform used as public utility and as such cannot behave as a private sector". It also complained that Wikipedia had "closed" the article about ANI for editing except by Wikipedia's "own editors", citing this as evidence of defamation with malicious intent and evidence that WMF was using its "officials" to "actively participate" in controlling content. ANI asked for ₹2 crore (approximately US$240,000) in damages and an injunction against Wikipedia "making, publishing, or circulating allegedly false, misleading, and defamatory content against ANI". The case was filed in July 2024 before Justice Navin Chawla in the Delhi High Court as ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v Wikimedia Foundation Inc & Ors. ANI argued that Wikipedia is a significant social media "intermediary" within the definition of Information Technology Act, 2000, and must therefore comply with the requirements of the Act, including taking down any content that the government or its agencies deem violative, or be personally liable for content published under its platform. Chawla issued a summons to WMF, called the lawsuit "a pure case of defamation" and set a hearing date of 20 August. On 20 August 2024, Chawla ordered WMF to disclose identifying details of three editors (also defendants in the lawsuit) who had worked on the Wikipedia article about ANI to allow ANI to pursue legal action against them as individuals. Chawla ordered WMF to provide the information within two weeks. On 5 September, ANI asked the court to find WMF in contempt when the identifying details were not released within the time frame. Chawla issued a contempt of court order and threatened to order the government of India to block Wikipedia in the country, saying "We will not take it any more. If you don't like India, please don't work in India...We will close your business transactions here." In response, Wikimedia emphasized that the information in the article was supported by multiple reliable secondary sources. Chawla ordered that an "authorised representative" of WMF appear in person at the next hearing, which was scheduled for 25 October 2024. On 14 October, Delhi High Court justices Manmohan and Tushar Rao Gedela objected to the creation of an English Wikipedia article about the defamation case, saying the article "disclos[ed] something about a sub-judice matter" and "will have to be taken down", and scheduled review for 16 October. On 16 October, the court stated that "Accordingly, in the interim, this Court directs that the pages on Wikipedia pertaining to the single judge as well as discussion of the observations of division bench be taken down or deleted within 36 hours".
- fwipsy 2y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International covers the lawsuit as well. "In July 2024, ANI filed a lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundation in the Delhi High Court — claiming to have been defamed in its article on Wikipedia — and sought ₹2 crore (US$240,000) in damages.[16][17][18] On 5 September, the Court threatened to hold Wikimedia guilty of contempt for failing to disclose information about the editors who had made changes to the article and warned that Wikipedia might be blocked in India upon further non-compliance. The judge on the case stated "If you don't like India, please don't work in India... We will ask government to block your site".[19][20] In response, Wikimedia emphasized that the information in the article was supported by multiple reliable secondary sources.[21] Justice Manmohan said "I think nothing can be worse for a news agency than to be called a puppet of an intelligence agency, stooge of the government. If that is true, the credibility goes."[22]" I suppose that this might not be the most objective article on Wikipedia. I don't have context for these statements. The way that Wikipedia quotes the judge makes it sound like he's threatening to order the Indian government to block Wikipedia because Wikipedia says that ANI is government propaganda. Is that really what's going on? If so it seems extremely ironic, to the point of tacitly admitting ANI's links to the Indian government. I know hacker news has many Indian readers; can they provide some context or an alternative perspective?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- praveen9920 2y agoNo. You read the statements right. Indian judges tend to give such statements, sometimes even worse. For example, recently one judge in unrelated case gave a statement that “criminalising marital rape is bit harsh”. The main problem in this case is that Wikimedia hasn’t complied YET with high court orders of revealing people who did the edits. ANI just went ahead and filed contempt of court case before Wiki legal team could respond. I’m not sure if initial order came with some sort of deadline or not. I guess they are trying to leverage the delay in their favour. In my opinion, ANI and many media houses in India are partially controlled by incumbent party ( BJP ) either by incentives or manipulation, you can read about Income tax raid on BBC and some other media outlets for understanding their methods.
- lolinder 2y agoOn January 18 2012, Wikipedia went black to draw attention to SOPA [0], a bill they described as one that "could fatally damage the free and open Internet". Since then, we've seen a slow and steady march in the direction we all dreaded. Country after country has decided that they have the right to block content on the "free and open Internet", and business after business (even those who joined the SOPA protests) has complied. Someone looking ahead from 2012 would barely recognize the internet today as being the same thing, the way we just roll over to the threats that used to cause global outrage and defiance. Were we naive even at the time? Have governments become more authoritarian? Or has our energy for resistance just been slowly whittled away? [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA#Wikimedia_community https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PI...
- LudwigNagasena 2y ago> Have governments become more authoritarian? It's not just governments. It's people that support grandiose efforts against "misinformation", "disinformation" and "malinformation". > Or has our energy for resistance just been slowly whittled away? People don't have energy to hear wrong and dangerous opinions anymore. Everything dangerous to the current order should be banned, otherwise fascism is inevitable.
- fireflash38 2y agoDo you think that there's a link between an extreme proliferation of misinformation and people wanting to control it?
- zmgsabst 2y agoNo. Media has always been salacious nonsense — at least, judging from the 1880s English newspapers I’ve read as part of a research writing class: they’re full of complete lies about Jack the Ripper, for instance. Most of the discussion from government is using that perennial fact to justify suppressing true information — eg, suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story or people’s personal experiences with the COVID vaccine. Even though that collapsed both trust in media and trust in medical institutions.
- PeterCorless 2y agoThank you. We're seeing a far more insidious and accelerating nationalization and politicization of reality. A very dangerous world ahead.
- lnxg33k1 2y ago[flagged]
- Schiendelman 2y agoIt looks like it was well sourced. What are you seeing?
- tomrod 2y agoRecommend reviewing some the other comments with sources listed in this thread. Basically, they preemptively levied contempt charges before there was a chance to respond, and the statements were sourced.
- userbinator 2y agoWe're seeing the effects of globalisation. India has no right to control what the rest of the world sees.
- darth_avocado 2y ago[flagged]
- bitnasty 2y agoThe link you posted does not support the statement you made.
- ruthmarx 2y agoNeither does Europe, yet they still try.
- 2y ago
- einpoklum 2y ago> Long-form reports by The Caravan and The Ken, along with reports by other media watchdogs have described the agency as serving as a propaganda tool of the incumbent government.[8][7][23] I wonder how long such a description of a US news outlet like CNN, Fox, NYT or WashPo would last on English Wikipedia.
- dekhn 2y agoThe NYT isn't a propaganda tool of the incumbent government; they are the mouthpiece of the establishment, which is different.
- tomrod 2y agoWithout end. These folks are listed as such and worse all across the internet by authoritarians in the US already.
- boomboomsubban 2y agoFrom the Fox News Wikipedia article >Fox News has been characterized by many as a propaganda organization.[24][25][26][27][28] Its coverage has included biased and false reporting in favor of the Republican Party, its politicians, and conservative causes,[29][30][31] while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News Too lazy to check the others. The NYT undoubtedly has a lengthy section on the buildup to the Iraq War, where they would have been a "propaganda tool of the incumbent government."
- kibwen 2y ago> The NYT undoubtedly has a lengthy section on the buildup to the Iraq War, where they would have been a "propaganda tool of the incumbent government." This comment might come across as sarcastic, possibly implying that Wikipedia wouldn't cover such a thing. To be clear, Wikipedia has an entire article entitled "List of The New York Times controversies" (linked from the main article), which does indeed mention the Iraq War (among other things) in the summary, with a section to elaborate, linking to the article on Judith Miller for much more extensive elaboration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies#Second_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_con... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#The_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#The_Iraq_War
- josephcsible 2y agoDoes the WMF have any presence in India? Why don't they just ignore the ruling?
- ImJamal 2y agoAll of Wikipedia would likely be banned which, I assume, they want to avoid.
- tomrod 2y agoYet another need for alternative, private internet connections. Authoritarianism should be acutely subverted.
- OutOfHere 2y agoThe only way in which this could be possible, if not via VPNs, is via everyone have direct satellite internet, which is a bit difficult without good line of sight. It would also require an independent means of payment like layer II of bitcoin. The better answer would be one where the ISPs don't have any ability to block websites. Web3 technologies could make it possible.
- tomrod 2y agoThat's not quite accurate. E2EE, mesh networks, and similar are also available alternative technologies. Satellites are still corporate-driven (necessarily) or government driven and thus can be focal points to block.
- Liftyee 2y agoTime to sit back and wait for the Streisand effect [0] to kick in... When will they learn that trying to hide things from the Internet is never that simple (as evidenced by the already-posted archive links)? [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- tomrod 2y agoIndeed. I never would have heard or cared about this statement or the high court. Now, I'll let the rage driven by an unwarranted attack against a purely beneficial institution cool a bit from white hot before engaging.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoThey shouldn’t comply on principle. But this trend of global blocks is picking up. See Australia versus X.
- alwayslikethis 2y agoI wonder what would be an effective countermeasure against stuff like this. Maybe we need a write-only global database and somehow separate the hosting/publisher from the organization that certifies it. Imagine if they simply sign an archive which is distributed over IPFS or some other distributed system. It would become impossible to take down content and as such impossible to comply with any blocking orders. They can issue a revocation but users are no obligated to respect that.
- josephg 2y ago> I wonder what would be an effective countermeasure against stuff like this. Good, trustworthy governance. I think its childish to try and make an ungovernable internet. Nobody actually wants to live in an ungovernable world. We want fraudulent credit card charges to be reversable. We want the parents of the victims of Sandy Hook to be able to get alex jones to shut up. I don't think pushing further to make the law impossible to enforce on the internet is the right direction. The right direction is to step up and work to make good rules. And maybe that means sites like wikipedia or google don't function in countries where the government has values incompatible with liberal democracy. That's fine. Maybe some day we have an internet which is actually divorced from meatspace government. When that happens, we'll need to do governance ourselves. Having no rules at all is the dream of naive children.
- 1shooner 2y ago>Good, trustworthy governance. This example shows that you can't just shut off free speech to a few rogue nations, because states 'incompatible with liberal democracy' include the majority of the world's population. As we see, they hold enough influence to assert their censorship on all of us, regardless of where we are. What hypothetical 'trustworthy governance' would be less susceptible to India's influence than WMF is in this case?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 2y ago
- crtasm 2y ago58 points | 2 days ago | 62 comments | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41921723 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41921723
- iafisher 2y agoOn-wiki discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#The_Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation_situation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#T...
- joveian 2y agoThanks, this article quoted in that discussion provides helpful background (written about a different case but might apply): https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2020/05/16/a-sullivan-for-the-times-the-madras-high-court-on-the-freedom-of-speech-and-criminal-defamation/ https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2020/05/16/a-sullivan-fo... "Quashing in a criminal defamation case is a difficult prospect. This is because – to simplify – under Section 499 of the IPC, a prima facie offence of defamation is made out with the existence of a defamatory imputation, which has been made with the intention or knowledge that it will cause harm. This is, evidently, a very low threshold. Section 499 also contains a set of exceptions to the rule (such as statements that are true and in the public interest, statements made in good faith about public questions, and so on) – but here’s the rub: these exceptions only kick in at the stage of trial, by which time the legal process has (in all likelihood) dragged on for years. What we essentially have, therefore, is one of those situations where the cost of censorship is low (instituting prima facie credible criminal proceedings), but the cost of speech is high (a tedious, time-consuming, and expensive trial, with the possibility of imprisonment). Long-standing readers will recall that this structure of criminal defamation law – and the chilling effect that it causes – was part of the unsuccessful 2016 challenge to the constitutionality of Section 499."
- SllX 2y agoThis was enlightening. Thanks for posting the link because I never would have found this page. Notably, Jimmy Wales also posted a statement on that page. The tl;dr seems to be they are intent on exhausting all legal options in India, but non-compliance in the short term is not an option if they wish to retain the right to appeal in India’s court system. I don’t know anything about India’s courts myself, but I copied his statement below: > Comment from Jimbo Wales > Hi everyone, I spoke to the team at the WMF yesterday afternoon in a quick meeting of the board. Although I've been around Internet legal issues for a long time, it's important to note that I am not a lawyer and that I am not here speaking for the WMF nor the board as a whole. I'm speaking personally as a Wikipedian. As you might expect, it's pretty limited as to what people are able to say at this point, and unwise to give too many details. However, I can tell you that I went into the call initially very skeptical of the idea of even temporarily taking down this page and I was persuaded very quickly by a single fact that changed my mind: if we did not comply with this order, we would lose the possibility to appeal and the consequences would be dire in terms of achieving our ultimate goals here. For those who are concerned that this is somehow the WMF giving in on the principles that we all hold so dear, don't worry. I heard from the WMF quite strong moral and legal support for doing the right thing here - and that includes going through the process in the right way. Prior to the call, I thought that the consequence would just be a block of Wikipedia by the Indian government. While that's never a good thing, it's always been something we're prepared to accept in order to stand for freedom of expression. We were blocked in Turkey for 3 years or so, and fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Nothing has chnaged about our principles. The difference in this case is that the short term legal requirements in order to not wreck the long term chance of victory made this a necessary step. My understanding is that the WMF has consulted with fellow traveler human rights and freedom of expression groups who have supported that we should do everything we can to win this battle for the long run, as opposed to petulantly refusing to do something today. I hope these words are reassuring to those who may have had some concerns!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- boomboomsubban 2y agoHow can they claim defamation when the original sentence said "(ANI has) been accused of...?" The bar of truth for that statement is absurdly low.
- hayleox 2y agoDefamation law in India is pretty bad and leans way more in favor of someone making an accusation of defamation than in favor of free and open speech. https://www.codastory.com/authoritarian-tech/rahul-gandhi-criminal-defamation/ https://www.codastory.com/authoritarian-tech/rahul-gandhi-cr...
- ta988 2y agoPretty similar to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radio_station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-sur-Haute_military_ra...
- utkarsh858 2y agoThe article has not been blocked by Indian government but by Indian judiciary system with a trial, there's a difference. Also trials in India take a lot of time and conclusions are reached after much thought. Also Wikipedia does not have a good track record of its editors free from misleading articles for defamation and propaganda. I won't trust at all the article in Wikipedia about the war between Wikipedia and ANI. The article (archive) already seems to present the court in a bad flavour.
- EasyMark 2y agoThat’s fine but why do they think they have jurisdiction over the entire planet?
- utkarsh858 2y agoYeah that is wrong, but many are under the impression that Indian government has started stomping on free speech and that the judiciary are just completely whimsical.
- sunshowers 2y agoIn India like in many other countries, the judiciary is one of the three branches of government. As an Indian citizen I certainly don't trust the Indian judiciary to be impartial when it comes to literally ANI.
- madebymaya 2y agothe opening statement is your opinion which is obviously incorrect, stated as if it's factual. In India, as in many countries that follow rule of law, judiciary is independent from government. It's the third pillar of democracy not government. Classic Doctrine of separation of powers. the latter part of the statement is clearly given as your opinion which of course one is free to carry.
- hm64 2y ago> judiciary is independent from government Correction: The judiciary is independent from the legislative branch of the government, but it functions alongside the executive and legislative branches as part of the Indian government. While the separation of powers is fundamental, it’s important to acknowledge that the existence of this structure doesn’t automatically guarantee impartiality or independence in practice.
- EasyMark 2y agoI can understand shutting it down to Indian IP ranges, but the whole world? I think they should have stood up to the Indian court and took wikipedia offline for India, otherwise soon there will be avalanche of demands to take down anything negative about modi, trump, xi, and putin.
- dyauspitr 2y agoShutting it down in India is losing your second biggest user base.
- AStonesThrow 2y agoI checked to see how large the Indic Wikipedias are, and the Tamil project is the largest at #60, while Hindi is #62, Bangla #63. (Urdu is #54, if you count it among them.) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias Now, those are further down in the list than I would've expected, but I suppose that the answer is that many Indians are contributing to English Wikipedia in the first place, due to greater exposure and fluency in that country. There is certainly extensive coverage of Bollywood, cricket, and other topics of great appeal to Indians at home and abroad.
- dyauspitr 2y agoI’m not sure what the breakdowns are for Indian contributions, but Indians make up ~10% of daily visitors.
- teractiveodular 2y agoTaking Wikipedia down for India would probably be a victory as far as the BJP is concerned.
- ruthmarx 2y agoWould it? It's not like Indians would stop accessing it. Then due to a stupid ruling they lost the ability to have any control over it at all.
- throwaway313373 2y agoSince when does Delhi high court have worldwide jurisdiction?
- colechristensen 2y agoSince Wikipedia folded to their demands. The correct action would have been to black out India, but they chose otherwise
- rex_lupi 2y agoIntentional or not I don't know, but that's a surefire way to start a powerful Streisand effect
- hayleox 2y agoWikipedia doesn't currently have the technical ability to block a single article on a country basis. They had 36 hours to comply with this order and so took what action they could. The goal is to win the long-term appeal battle and avoid the entire site getting blocked permanently, but if they didn't comply with the short-term legal requirements, that path becomes much harder. Lose a battle but win the war.
- moralestapia 2y ago>Wikipedia doesn't currently have the technical ability to block a single article on a country basis. I can imagine. That's too much to ask to a company that's been on business for 20 years and have received 1.3B USD in total. I could come up w/ a solution to that in an afternoon on my $5/mo server but yeah "you don't understand the scale of wikipedia" or some bs. Not "donating" a single cent ever again.
- Alpha3031 2y agoThere have been only about 6 office actions involving content for that 20 years, so one can imagine it might not be much of a priority to spend an entire afternoon doing something they don't expect to use even once a year.
- t2o3423423243 2y ago[flagged]
- dartharva 2y agoYour claims, even taken on face value (which would be ridiculous), aren't enough to justify threatening a public-service knowledge website with bans in modern society, which is today defined by Western values (for better or worse). And Western values have this peculiarity where free speech is sacred and any infringement on it is sacrilege. But most of Asia is a newcomer to the concept and so doesn't see a problem in censorship where it sees fit. On a side note, I can't recall a single point in time throughout its several millennia of history when South Asia ever featured 1A-levels of free speech. Such a lack in society is downright disgusting for anyone raised in Western influence.
- card_zero 2y agoThe West Indies aren't India. Is this a cover-up, part of a scheme to distort perceptions? No, it's an artifact of history. Turkeys aren't from Turkey (officially "Türkiye"). But birds from south of the Sahara that resemble turkeys were at one time sold to Western Europe via Turkey. Then the name was transferred to large American birds, inaccurately, because they were you know what I mean, Turkeys. Similarly, Arabic numerals (which undeniably passed through Arabic) were you know what I mean, Arabic numbers instead of people attempting to deliver detailed history lessons mid-conversation. There was no deliberate or even subconscious attempt to impugn any foreign country. Well, no specific attempt. No more than usual. It was just people persistently getting the names of things wrong, like they always will.
- thimabi 2y agoI’d like to clear up some misconceptions about jurisdiction going on in this thread, purely from the perspective of international law. As a matter of sovereignty, a state can exercise judicial jurisdiction over its territory, over its nationals, over national security concerns and over the most grave crimes. A state’s jurisdiction can apply even to foreign people/companies who have no presence in said state at all. What the state’s courts can’t do is enforce their decisions abroad. I know nothing about Indian law, but I know it has the right to set its own judicial jurisdiction. Accordingly, it can surely grant courts the power to order worldwide content bans. The real questions at stake in this case are: 1) does Wikipedia have any presence in India, so that Indian courts can compel it to follow their orders? 2) which countries where Wikipedia operates are able to receive requests from Indian courts and take enforcement action based on them? It might not be fair, or right, but that’s the way it is. Thankfully, the obstacles to enforcing absurd orders abroad are usually high enough that they discourage said orders, or render them ineffective.
- tomrod 2y agoIt's not the way it is, unless people accept it as such. Sorry, but VPNs exist, Wikipedia is inherently clonable and downloadable. Silicon rock beats Indian paper courts, any way you slice it, unless Wikipedia chooses to back down. They shouldn't.
- thimabi 2y agoI agree that the decision is wrong and unfair, and that it can be easily circumvented. That does not negate India’s right to legislate as it wants, nor does it prevent the Indian government from repressing citizens who choose to defy the law. It’s very unfortunate, but there is more to this case than simply negating a country’s jurisdiction or encouraging nationals to challenge it.
- marcus_holmes 2y agoCue an Australian Prime Minister saying "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia" [0]. Yes, India can make ridiculous unenforceable laws, same as any country, but that doesn't actually do anything: Laws only matter when they can be enforced. In this case India trying to enforce a worldwide ban on this story is clearly unenforceable. And because of VPNs that means that enforcing a national ban on this story is clearly unfeasible. However, because the people who make the laws are ignorant of the technical reasons why it's unfeasible they'll carry on and do it anyway. The Australian PM was in the same boat, made the same mistake, and was widely ridiculed for it. [0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathematics-dont-apply-here-says-australian-pm/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...
- mtnGoat 2y agoThe fact they pulled it means I will no longer be donating. I can’t support orgs that won’t go the distance to protect a free and open internet when that’s what they argue for.
- RockyMcNuts 2y agothey didn't pull it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International
- card_zero 2y agoThat's ... confusing. * The article points out that reliable sources say the media org runs a network of fake news sites pushing BJP propaganda. * The media org sues Wikipedia. * The judge threatens to block Wikipedia in India, and demands the doxxing of the editors who made these observations about what sources say. * Somebody starts a Wikipedia page about this civil case. * That page now says "The Wikimedia Foundation has suspended access to this page due to an order by the Delhi High Court", but the one the case is about is still up. Was there no such order about the Asian News International page? Or there was, but the WMF is ignoring that one while complying with this one? I don't really get it, although "refrain from publishing information about an ongoing trial in case you prejudice the outcome" would be a reasonable request to comply with for ethical reasons. But they make it sound like they were forced to block this page and didn't want to. But not the page this page is about. Huh? Edit: I think I see now, thanks to the above link about "On-wiki discussion". Something about the vagaries of law means blocking the meta-level article, but not the original one, is necessary if they want to appeal, years down the line when they get a chance. So it's strategic.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Symbiote 2y agoI think of you read this thread you might reconsider. They've taken the article down to hopefully win in the long run. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41932225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41932225
- kragen 2y agoThis is quite alarming. It's well past time to fork Wikipedia.
- robertsky_ 2y agoThe related court case is ongoing: https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-flags-wikipedia-model-dangerous https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-flags-wiki...
- ruthmarx 2y agoWe desperately need more work done on a separate internet that by design cannot and never can be censored. I know there are some projects toward that already, but my fear is they won't reach maturity before governments blocking any content they don't want their population accessing is the norm. Some things should be illegal, sure, but if governments start attacking free speech and limiting what materials a population should have access to when they have no reason to do so, then an alternate network where crime is rampant that they can't police is a necessary price to pay to get around unjust authoritarianism.
- eternauta3k 2y agoIf you take wikipedia rogue and only accept crypto donations, the budget will take a nosedive. And the project will lose all relevance once the non-tor mirrors are blocked in the big countries.
- ruthmarx 2y agoI wasn't talking about Wikipedia directly, but the net as a whole. I agree if you took wikipedia rogue it would take a nosedive, but what I would expect would happen is the rogue Wikipedia would not try to duplicate Wikipedia's article, bur rather just have uncensored versions of articles available which is a much more feasible project.
- SirHumphrey 2y agoThis fundamentally doesn't work because internet is not something existing in a vacuum - you need wires, fibers and servers to make it work, and those are located in somebodies jurisdiction. The willingness to transmit encrypted data exists for now in most countries, but would some kind of fully encrypted ungovernable internet take hold, that may rapidly change. As with DeFi, some problems cannot be solved by technology, they must be solved in courts, parliaments and in elections - at least where it's possible to do so.
- ruthmarx 2y ago> This fundamentally doesn't work because internet is not something existing in a vacuum - you need wires, fibers and servers to make it work, and those are located in somebodies jurisdiction. The reason it works is because there are numerous ways of hiding traffic at various layers. Eventually it will probably be feasible to do DPI on every single packet and prevent that, but at the moment it's quite doable.
- nofree288 2y agoWhen X came out with allegations about interfere from govt agencies HN crowd was mocking them nothing burger etc Now they are concerned about freedom of speech If can't defend freedom of speech regardless of your political opinion then you don't deserve freedom of speech
- chris_wot 2y agoIf India blocks Wikipedia, then it will mainly badly affect Indian citizens.
- dirtyhippiefree 2y agoThe problem presents the solution with a slight change of emphasis: Resistance is futile? We •will• adapt!
- botanical 2y agoSlowly, more citizen rights are being eroded by so-called democratic countries by weaponising legislation to get what the few elite in government want. Another example was US sanctions against Russia, which led to the Linux kernel maintainers removing Russians. Not all Russians support or endorse the war criminal Putin. Are we going to see Western-allied countries like Apartheid Israel also sanctioned? Probably not. Legislation should not be used as a weapon to promote state propaganda. Are we really going to block freely-available content on the internet? It seems like decentralisation is key to citizen liberty divorced from any one country's legislation.
- 1f60c 2y agoI'm actually really disappointed in Wikimedia. Why didn't they fight this at all? Or, y'know, just ignore it?
- boomboomsubban 2y agoFighting it requires they temporarily agree to their demands.
- anovikov 2y agoWhy not just instead, block access to all Wikipedia in India, get some popcorn and see massive protests overturn the situation (and if not done quickly enough, probably result in overthrow of the government or maybe of state itself, because popular protests tend to escalate beyond their original goals as commonly seen in Latin America).
- janalsncm 2y agoSomehow blocking one page on Wikipedia feels a lot more painful than all of Twitter being blocked. I know it’s imperfect but I depend on it as a source of fairly reliable knowledge.
- lifeisstillgood 2y agoThere are a lot of lessons to learn here 1. The Streisand effect. No-one on HN gave a monkeys about this dodgy news agency till today. Now half of us have read the archive about how they promote propaganda & fake news. Your reputation takes a hit 2. There is no absolute definition of “freedom”. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for humanity in general and I think should be defended. But as more and more of humanity come to live more and more online, then the legal and cultural norms will shift and shuffle - courts for two hundred years have assumed they can order anyone in their jurisdiction around and often not in their jurisdiction- and that’s kind of the point of courts. So what is freedom? It’s what we the demos and the courts agree … 3. An example is in the order (I mean on the Streisand effect - when the %#}#% hell would I ever read a court order from India ?!) - it says “herein to take down/delete” - this bespeaks a failure to understand the world on the level of “who are the Beatles”. Take down - fine this is part of how we agree norms and limits of courts. Delete. Are you kidding me. Does that imply from everywhere else? Wow.
- hshshshshsh 2y ago[flagged]
- _el1s7 2y agoWikipedia looks like a fantastic resource, but it's not really a reliable source of information. Everyone can write things there, including people with biases and conflicting interests. Their rules about editing are really annoying and unfair, they don't care about facts. I enjoy reading Wikipedia sometimes, but it's a broken system, a lot of truths missing in it's articles because of crap editors and political propaganda. Also it's admins are toxic and abuse their little power they have over every editor there. Try editing some articles there, and you will see the dark side of Wikipedia.
- jampekka 2y ago> Wikipedia looks like a fantastic resource, but it's not really a reliable source of information. It's about as reliable it gets. It cites sources, has whole history available, has little conflicts of interest and has transparent editorial guidelines and process. Many people are probably shocked to find views in WP that aren't aligned with what their newsmedia reports and frames.
- BiteCode_dev 2y agoWhy is it not just blocked in India? How come an American product, some of it is hosted on European servers cannot be reached in France?
- youwillseeit 2y ago[dead]
- ycombinete 2y agoIt feels absurd that the Talk page is also blocked in this instance!
- dangsux 2y ago[dead]
- Aeolun 2y agoI don’t understand why the wikimedia foundation should give a rats ass about what the delhi high court wants?
- instagraham 2y agoAs an Indian, you cannot understand the despair this makes me feel. ANI is a bit like privatised Pravda operating in service to the government, yet, still pretending to be independent journalism. Wherever there is a critic of the government, ANI exists to slander such critics as a service. As a discerning reader, you learn to avoid mainstream media that quotes ANI (don't even consider watching a TV channel). You seek out alternate information sources. As the entity aligns closer with the ruling party and the mega-corporations like Adani that are aligned with it, you basically witness an octopus take over all information communication in India. Then you get harsher and harsher laws regulating social media. You get no new laws protecting your speech. You witness a general fatalism set in on the few Indian comment sections that still think this stuff is wrong. But one day you see it on HN and realise everyone is basically powerless here. Foolish maybe, but I genuinely hoped the open and open-sourced side of the internet would transcend borders. There must exist an information ecosystem that is above government. But Linux bans Russian devs, wikipedia is blocked worldwide because they wouldn't reveal an editor's biodata to India, social media platforms regulating information appoint information officers to enforce dictatorial government orders. Where is the technology that can challenge this? At what point can the principle of "code is law" support free human expression instead of serving the whims of the latest oppressive regime? I would implore any devs making open-source censorship-proof tools to consider the Indian context as ground zero.
- blue_pants 2y ago> Linux bans Russian devs The devs weren't banned, they were removed from the maintainers list https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/10/russian-coders-removed-from-linux-maintainers-list-due-to-sanction-concerns https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/10/russi...
- idle_zealot 2y agoWhat you're talking about, trancending government orders, is inherently illegal. Any tech that enables it must be distributed, untrackable, and private. You're basically describing the darknet.
- pas 2y ago"Code is law" is a meme. Law is a social concept, it has many parts, the statutes, that serve as mementos for past power struggles, the active part which consist of the courts, prosecutors' discretion, enforcement, and of course society itself, as the workings of these reified components reflect society itself. Code can of course model some of these, be part of law, and even it can try to complement or supplant certain roles and/or functions from the aforementioned ones, but as long as there are humans in the loop code will not be itself law. Sure, soon we'll probably end up with RoboCops patrolling the streets, and maybe even AI writing much of the statutes, and eventually even AI making most of the law, but even then code won't be law.
- lovegrenoble 2y agoAnyway, it is not really a reliable source of info
- ozozozd 2y agoI think comments about how Wikipedia is backing down when they have the right to ignore the situation doesn’t do Wikipedia justice. Getting Wikipedia banned in India, would hurt the people of India, who don’t have a say in the matter. Sure, _some_ people will still figure out a way to access it. But, they are not even the people who most need Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia’s trying to toe the line, preventing a country-wide ban, which would affect nearly a billion people, while still drawing attention to the situation is a pretty good strategy.
- 1dom 2y agoI feel like your comment is overlooking 2 pretty crucial points that I think these questions will force you to face: 1. one country's court has done something which lead Wikipedia to block content from the entire world. Why do you think every bad political leader now isn't going to be instructing their courts and lawyers to do the same thing for any unfavourable content, creating huge, unnecessary legal work, or even more globally banned content? 2. you mention it's good because they're avoiding blocking information from 1 billion people. 8 billion is more than 1 billion, and all 8 billion are impacted by this decision and potential precedence, so why is it better this way? No disrespect intended, but you've commended a worldwide content ban by wikipedia and dismissed all other comments without articulating any solid reasons why. I would love to understand your position a bit more, because it seems a little different.
- kayxspre 2y agoI am following this case closely to see how will WMF handle the issue when it goes to court, as the issue I am experiencing is similar to this one. To describe briefly: There is a politician ("S") with articles in various languages of Wikipedia. One day, a group of people claiming to be the daughter of S ("T") tried to insert content that can be described as "trivial" and not relating to the work of S itself. Wikipedia editors, including myself, tried to argue to T that the content T inserted in an article about S isn't something that should be inserted, and despite the article of S including the criticism relating to lawsuit against S and his policy, the content was supported by books written by scholars. T simply argued that the content written in article of S is false, and threatened to bring lawsuit against editors involving in the process of keeping article of S up to standard. So far, T managed to file a police report against some editors, but no lawsuits were filed as far as I know. T also maintained presence in another forum, and I also argue that Wikipedia do not allow T to insert content of S in a manner T intended to. Instead, T decided to quote my reply out of context to defame me, causing me to send cease and desist notice. This prompted T to stalk my lawyer and publish the information, causing the lawyer and myself to discuss further action that should be taken in relation to this issue. I have reported this incident to WMF 5 years ago, as the issue has been as long as that point. The issue on T and S has become so persistent such that I have proposed that our language of WMF project will ban any content relating to their family, as we do not want our volunteers to expose to legal liability for having to deal with frivolous lawsuit. This threatened lawsuit is one of the reasons I largely retired from writing content in Wikipedia, as I do not want accomplices of T and S to discover that I am active and that they will continue to harass me, though I'll still handle this behind the scenes if needed.
- random_ind_dude 2y agoI understand that Wikipedia has done this to not lose the possibility to appeal the court's decision. However, if the appeal is not successful and ANI wins, I think Wikipedia should just block India completely. I believe that will blow up spectacularly in ANI's face if everyone comes to know the reason for the block. Right now only a few people in India know about the ongoing dispute between ANI and Wikipedia. A country-level block is going to bring everyone's attention to the issue which I don't think is something ANI and the incumbent party (the BJP) would want to happen. India routinely blocks many websites, including many porn sites, but blocking something as big, popular and useful as Wikipedia is not going to go unnoticed by the Indian media.
- contravariant 2y agoIf possible it would be better to let India block wikipedia themselves, that way the government doesn't get to shift blame on Wikipedia. Whichever way it goes the government has a lot of control over the narrative and it's a lot harder for them to hide that it is their decision to block wikipedia completely.
- brainzap 2y agogood answer
- Self-Perfection 2y agoGovernments do not hesitate to blatantly shift blame. For instance, Russian internet censorship agency blocks YouTube for a couple of months and they still pretend that it is Google's technical issue: https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/23/10/2024/6718fc469a7947f3be50635b?from=share https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/23/10/2024/6718fc469...
- startupsfail 2y agoI’m a bit surprised Google is still serving at Russia, are they doing it to avoid loosing browser and search market share? They could not be making any money on advertising there, I assume?
- calvinmorrison 2y agoI don't really oppose gdpr but one of the reasons I vehemently opposed implementing GDPR at my former job is that we were not operating in the EU. Well, we had customers there, but we were an American company operating with American severs. GDPR sets another precident that other countries can make laws about what people from other jurisdictions can do.. Our lawyers said "Do it anyway, just in case". The side effect of these very many different local regulatory bodies is you start trying to comply with multiple laws, some that can conflict each other - and this costs not just time and money, but the rigidity to stand up and say "No, our elected leaders have decided what the laws of the land are, and we follow them". And the thing is, many countries do not have good faith laws. The majority of the people in the world live under what Americans and the EU, and the West would call lacking fundamental human rights. Some of these laws are plain BAD (hell, the US and AU even have our own bad internet laws) and some are EVIL. Google routinely complying with the Chinese government is a great example of them wanting to take the cash first and ask questions later (or not at all). I don't want to work for that company. I don't really think being a good 'worldwide' citizen can exist when there are conflicting views held by governments about what is right. The fact is some governments are objectively etter than others I don't really think we aught to be involving ourselves at all with Russian officals, apparatjiks or other government bodies - but we find ourselves in this situation again, like GDPR, Russian officals have set certain rules about how data for russian citizens needs be held. Of course Russia has no grounds to sue me in America and if it did, do you think a judge would enforce our compliance with laws that hold no water in our countries? Of course not. Russia wants russians data - on russian servers in russia. The fact is they're probably mostly interested in being able to physically seize - without any due process - russian citizens data from servers which all happen to be in russia. It's a smart law if you're interested in putting people in gulags. I'd rather lose all russian customers, and also all of the customers in north korea, or whatever else despotic governments that exist that think they can exert pressure on independent companies who don't operate under their jurisdictions and not have to worry about what bullshit they'll come up with next. None of this to imply that the US and EU, Australia, Switzerland, etcdon't have a bunch of questionable laws and procedures that might not be quite fair or free either, but the world ain't perfect What happens next is country X decides you must do one thing, and country Y decides you do another, and you come to TECHNICAL problems and BUSINESS problems and ETHICAL problems trying to comply with both. If you're not in the EU, do not even bother with GDPR. Rant over
- dhx 2y agoWhat's the point of this block on English Wikipedia (language spoken by 11% of Indians) when the following alleged "defamatory information" is still available on Hindi Wikipedia (language spoken by 40% of Indians): "ANI has been accused of acting as a propaganda tool for the current central government, distributing content from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on several occasions."[1] Hindi Wikipedia also addresses the lawsuit between ANI and Wikipedia in the same article as this alleged "defamatory information" instead of having a translated version of the English Wikipedia ANI v Wikimedia case.[2][3] Bengali Wikipedia (language spoken by 9% of Indians) is a stub article that still manages to make similar remarks to Hindi Wikipedia.[4] Telugu Wikipedia (language spoken by 8% of Indians) has favorable coverage of ANI but still addresses the lawsuit between ANI and Wikipedia.[5] Malayalam Wikipedia (language spoken by 3% of Indians) just has a stub article that says nothing much.[6] edit: Answer appears to be "On 14 October, Delhi High Court justices Manmohan and Tushar Rao Gedela objected to the creation of an English Wikipedia article about the defamation case, saying the article "disclos[ed] something about a sub-judice matter" and "will have to be taken down", and scheduled review for 16 October. On 16 October, the court stated that "Accordingly, in the interim, this Court directs that the pages on Wikipedia pertaining to the single judge as well as discussion of the observations of division bench be taken down or deleted within 36 hours".".[7][8] [1] https://hi-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A8_%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%BC_%E0%A4%87%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%9F%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%B2?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://hi-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%A4%8F%E0%... [2] https://hi-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A8_%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%BC_%E0%A4%87%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%9F%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%B2?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp#%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A1%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE_%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87_%E0%A4%96%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AB_%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE https://hi-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%A4%8F%E0%... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._W... [4] https://bn-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%A6%8F%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8_%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%89%E0%A6%9C_%E0%A6%87%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%9F%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp#%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%95 https://bn-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%A6%8F%E0%... [5] https://te-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%B0%8F%E0%B0%B7%E0%B0%BF%E0%B0%AF%E0%B0%A8%E0%B1%8D_%E0%B0%A8%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%AF%E0%B1%82%E0%B0%B8%E0%B1%8D_%E0%B0%87%E0%B0%82%E0%B0%9F%E0%B0%B0%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%A8%E0%B1%87%E0%B0%B7%E0%B0%A8%E0%B0%B2%E0%B1%8D?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp#2024_%E0%B0%B5%E0%B0%BF%E0%B0%95%E0%B1%80%E0%B0%AA%E0%B1%80%E0%B0%A1%E0%B0%BF%E0%B0%AF%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%AA%E0%B1%88_%E0%B0%8F%E0%B0%8E%E0%B0%A8%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%90_%E0%B0%AA%E0%B0%B0%E0%B1%81%E0%B0%B5%E0%B1%81_%E0%B0%A8%E0%B0%B7%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%9F%E0%B0%82_%E0%B0%A6%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%B5%E0%B0%BE https://te-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%B0%8F%E0%... [6] https://ml-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%B4%8F%E0%B4%B7%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%AF%E0%B5%BB_%E0%B4%A8%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%AF%E0%B5%82%E0%B4%B8%E0%B5%8D_%E0%B4%87%E0%B4%A8%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B1%E0%B5%BC%E0%B4%A8%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%B7%E0%B4%A3%E0%B5%BD?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://ml-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%B4%8F%E0%... [7] Deleted article: https://archive.md/XIxZv#selection-2289.0-2351.1 https://archive.md/XIxZv#selection-2289.0-2351.1 [8] Deleted article: https://archive.md/CcA6Q https://archive.md/CcA6Q
- Kenji 2y ago[dead]
- yokoprime 2y agoUp until this point I had never heard about ANI. Now I believe it’s a propaganda tool used to spread fake news. Great job.
- icu 2y agoIt's preposterous for an Indian court to block access to a Wikipedia page from outside of India. While alarming, I could understand an IP geoblock for Indian traffic but not all traffic outside of India. This is an overreach and impacts the sovereignty of non-Indian citizens and non-Indian residents.
- lxe 2y agoNever heard of ANI. But now I have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International
- 0xedd 2y ago[dead]
- pessimizer 2y agoIt's a trial in which Wikipedia is one of the participants. Do people who think that this is the real censorship support allowing any participant in a trial put up a webpage, that the "public" is allowed to edit, whose only purpose is to comment on the trial? Do you support this in all cases? If the "public" chooses to use that webpage to attack witnesses, jurors, and judges, can it be taken down then? Must Wikipedia, as a participant in the trial, be allowed to support and moderate a page like this? It's also not a jurisdiction question. Wikipedia is free not to block the page anywhere if it is willing to be punished within India's jurisdiction for failing to do it. This thread is so bizarre. I think 80% of middle-class people are against censorship of anything they support, and for censorship of anything they don't. The other 20% take moral positions instead of narcissistic ones, but are usually intimidated into silence. These people like Wikipedia, so censoring Wikipedia in any possible circumstance, including maintaining a place to comment on an ongoing trial in which they are a participant is wrong. Censoring Elon, censoring Palestine? It's actually so right that you seem Russian for even asking about it.
- psalzzz 2y agoWikipedia is used and abused routinely as a political attack engine -- by every political party. It's a mess and shouldn't be trusted for any social or political subject.
- DirkH 2y agoCan someone smarter than me explain how it can be that it is blocked for me despite being in North America?
- consf 2y ago[dead]
- account42 2y agoWhy is Wikipedia structured in such a way that the Delhi High Court has any say in what I as a european can view on en.wikipedia.org? We can't let the internet be governed by the lowest common denominator of legal decisions.
- silexia 2y agoRemember when all of the far left folks around here thought it was okay to censor x.com? Once you start allowing censorship of one side, the same tools can get used against you. Fight all censorship, even if it's speech you disagree with.