4 ms·

Since when does Delhi high court have worldwide jurisdiction?

colechristensen 2y ago
Since Wikipedia folded to their demands. The correct action would have been to black out India, but they chose otherwise
- rex_lupi 2y ago
  Intentional or not I don't know, but that's a surefire way to start a powerful Streisand effect
- hayleox 2y ago
  Wikipedia 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 ago
      There 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.
    - hayleox 2y ago
      Here's what their server stack looks like: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers Lot of replication and caching in there. For every cache there has to be a solution for how we're gonna make sure India doesn't receive the cached version, or receives a different cached version than the rest of the world. You also need to be sure that none of your changes are going to cause any significant reliability or performance issues. If you wanted to block India from accessing the entire site you could just cut them off at the top of the diagram, but blocking just one article means you have to get a lot more in the weeds. Could they have hacked something together in 36 hours? Maybe. But the risk of causing larger reliability issues, or of having the forbidden article still partially accessible in India, would not be worth it.
      - moralestapia 2y ago
        >"you don't understand the scale of wikipedia" or some bs
        hayleox 2y ago
        Yeah, I saw. I was just explaining that it's not just some BS; there are very good reasons why they couldn't put together a well-tested reliable solution with a 36-hour deadline.
- BeFlatXIII 2y ago
  Why not keep serving India and force themselves to be blocked by Indian ISPs? Do they have any assets in India?
YetAnotherNick 2y ago
There is no international law. Every national court can claim anyone in the world as guilty or order anyone anything. Actual implementation is the tricky aspect though.

Since Wikipedia folded to their demands. The correct action would have been to black out India, but they chose otherwise

rex_lupi 2y ago
Intentional or not I don't know, but that's a surefire way to start a powerful Streisand effect
hayleox 2y ago
Wikipedia 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 ago
    There 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.
  - hayleox 2y ago
    Here's what their server stack looks like: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers Lot of replication and caching in there. For every cache there has to be a solution for how we're gonna make sure India doesn't receive the cached version, or receives a different cached version than the rest of the world. You also need to be sure that none of your changes are going to cause any significant reliability or performance issues. If you wanted to block India from accessing the entire site you could just cut them off at the top of the diagram, but blocking just one article means you have to get a lot more in the weeds. Could they have hacked something together in 36 hours? Maybe. But the risk of causing larger reliability issues, or of having the forbidden article still partially accessible in India, would not be worth it.
    - moralestapia 2y ago
      >"you don't understand the scale of wikipedia" or some bs
      - hayleox 2y ago
        Yeah, I saw. I was just explaining that it's not just some BS; there are very good reasons why they couldn't put together a well-tested reliable solution with a 36-hour deadline.
BeFlatXIII 2y ago
Why not keep serving India and force themselves to be blocked by Indian ISPs? Do they have any assets in India?

YetAnotherNick 2y ago

There is no international law. Every national court can claim anyone in the world as guilty or order anyone anything. Actual implementation is the tricky aspect though.