[flagged]
Tell HN: Razorpay a YC company shared donor data under a Section 91 order
81–90 of 321 posts
Re: Tell HN: Razorpay a YC company shared donor data under a Section 91 order
#82Quoted post unavailable.
I don't think AltNews received foreign funding. Nor was it possible for Razorpay to process the payment.
Interestingly, it's possible for political parties to receive foreign funding (via. Electoral Bonds) without much transparency to the electorate about how much they receive.
Re: Tell HN: Razorpay a YC company shared donor data under a Section 91 order
#83This is very sad to see, and makes me really worry about the people who got their names handed to the police. The current jingoistic BJP regime is doing all sorts of authoratarian things in India, like demolishing housing for merely taking part in protests [0]. They have also used facial recognition techniques to identify mere protesters and punish them severely [1]. They put a doctor in jail for saving lives of kids…
Referencing the BBC and the Wire here is the equivalent of quoting the WaPo when discussing Trump.
You want him to refer India Today, Timesnow, republic, euro news, danik bhaskar and Dhinamalar?
Or **opIndia?
Re: Tell HN: Razorpay a YC company shared donor data under a Section 91 order
#84Razorpay acted completely in accordance with Indian laws. They shared this information because they received a written order under section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of India[1]. This does not mandate a court order to produce the required documents. The order can be given by the officer in charge of a police station as well.
Re: Tell HN: Razorpay a YC company shared donor data under a Section 91 order
#85Re: Tell HN: Razorpay a YC company shared donor data under a Section 91 order
#86Here's what happened: - Nupur Sharma, spokesperson of the governing party (BJP) mocks Prophet Mohammed on National TV saying that he had sex with a 9 year old. She then justifies it saying she was quoting the Hadith (Islamic religious texts). - ZooBear on Twitter brings attention to the issue, via his channel AltNews - India gets international condemnation, Gulf countries are pissed - India apologizes to various Gulf…
Whenever I think US politics have gone off the rails, it's perhaps comforting to see other countries are way worse.
Re: Tell HN: Razorpay a YC company shared donor data under a Section 91 order
#87Quoted post unavailable.
>money was received from syria and pakistan to this account This is untrue. Razor pay did not accept international credit cards. >Data was sought from the startup about this account by court order. There was no court order.
bruh, razorpay supports processing international cards. its literally on their website.
Re: Tell HN: Razorpay a YC company shared donor data under a Section 91 order
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
I give zero sympathy or support to BJP and its destruction of India's democratic institutions. Yet, I can't agree with your comment. First, I don't think Razorpay supports BJP or its bigotry, at least openly. One indicator of that is that they have retained critical media like AltNews and Wire as customers from years. I don't think they'd do that if they were pro-BJP or pro-bigotry. Plus, I've noticed that rightwing…
neutrality in the face of bigotry seems like alignment, or at least it's a sign of a larger problem which you've very clearly laid out. I think it's time to consider Boycotting, divestment and sanctions of India since it's flat-spinning into the clutches of full-on fascism. Very sad.
And India will reciprocate by boycotting all those countries which try to do this.
But you are starting a new type of apartheid.
Re: Tell HN: Razorpay a YC company shared donor data under a Section 91 order
#89[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: Tell HN: Razorpay a YC company shared donor data under a Section 91 order
#90Quoted post unavailable.
The problem with this approach is that a vague "because terrorism" can justify a heavy handed approach to a very large set of policies which have nothing to do with terrorism. And "because terrorism", "because covid", "because child abuse" become convenient tools for the government to force this or that policy on its citizens. It is a lot easier to claim "because terrorism" than to argue a policy on merits and respond to counter arguments.
The upstream question is harder to answer, though: if the majority of the governed support this approach, is it democracy in action or an autocratic overreach?