41–50 of 268 posts
> on account of not blocking / removing sacrilegious contents > Wikipedia was approached for blocking / removal of the said contents > platform neither complied by removing the blasphemous content nor appeared before the Authority. Anyone know what sacrilegious/blasphemous content they are referring to?
Are there artistic depictions of Muhammed on Wikipedia?
Similar things are happening in the West given US and Euro govts leaning on Social Media companies to censor dissenting/blasphemous views. Just think - what are you not allowed to say? What will get you banned or blacklisted?
It does look like Wikipedia is ahead of Twitter in the free speech absolutist game if it prefers being blocked to compliance.
... Why not edit out the "offensive" material? edit I meant why didn't the Pakistani government just edit Wikipedia like any other person. I realized my post could be taken as saying "why didn't Wikipedia just do what they want" which was not what I meant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s plenty of room to criticize both
What I’ve realized is that people in general are largely incapable of nuance. - Things are either bad or good. - Only one side can be right which means the other side is automagically wrong. - Multiple things can’t be true at the same time. - etc.
> on account of not blocking / removing sacrilegious contents > Wikipedia was approached for blocking / removal of the said contents > platform neither complied by removing the blasphemous content nor appeared before the Authority. Anyone know what sacrilegious/blasphemous content they are referring to?
This article https://www.geo.tv/latest/468510-pakistan-warns-blocking-wik... says depictions of Muhammad and saying this person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Masroor_Ahmad is a Muslim. I'm not sure if that press conference was over the 2020 issue or the current one.
... Why not edit out the "offensive" material? edit I meant why didn't the Pakistani government just edit Wikipedia like any other person. I realized my post could be taken as saying "why didn't Wikipedia just do what they want" which was not what I meant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Someone reported this to the FBI, it's not actionable on a criminal level, but it breaks your TOS, heads-up" versus "we have deleted the encyclopedia for religious reasons". Yep, definitely comparable scenarios. Blasphemy carries the death penalty in Pakistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_in_Pakistan
Yep, definitely comparable scenarios. I think it is. Pakastan can create whatever laws fit its culture. I would never dare to imagine imposing my values or beliefs on them. They should create their own Wiki alternative and make it popular within their nation. [Edit] Or if their people see fit change their laws, overthrow their government or whatever they deem appropriate for their culture. But that is entirely on the…
In recent years I've come around to viewing the American ideal of absolute "free speech" as not being all that nuanced, particularly because we know know the speed at which viral false and illegitimate claims travel and the slower speed at which reasoned responses to those speech travel.
I think we can all agree that artistic depictions of Mohammad, even if they fall squarely under free speech, are something that are of poor taste because they trigger the sensibilities of a large chunk of people that abide to certain customs and norms. The hope here is that these folks come around to their viewpoints and say "sigh, I don't like what you're doing, but I'm just going to turn away". The debate is front and center, let's see how it evolves.