3 ms·
I 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
by ozozozd 2y ago
I 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.