221–230 of 268 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am trying to think why Wikipedia would care about this. They offer a free service - if you don't want it that's just disappointing.
An ideological commitment to free knowledge, mostly. It's upsetting to be cut off from people who could use it.
I'm starting to view more and more things as nationalism vs globalism. E.g. multinational corporations vs national tax laws E.g. global internet services vs national privacy laws E.g. global internet services vs national decency laws (the posted issue) I'm starting to realise this mismatch is where a lot of friction is and will continue to be.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because the law of a country (a very populated country) prohibits it s/law/rulers/g
> s/law/rulers/g You don't need to replace them. They are equivalent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One modern alternative is "no religion", which is better than any religion that enforces this kind of crap. This is the position any modern governing entity should take. I don't have a problem with religion in principle, only when it is used as justification to mistreat others, as is happening here. At that point any spiritual benefits it offers adherents are outweighed by the societal harm it causes. There are good…
It's not automatically good. One of the most atheist governments was Soviet Russia, with the attendant horrifying death toll on its population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"like employees vs their own company" For most employees their company is not their own. They don't own any of it. Employees, in my opinion, have no other obligation to their employers beyond what is outlined in their contract and any employee who thinks otherwise has been bamboozled. Never settle for a "sense of ownership." If a company wants me to have a "sense of ownership" they should let me actually own part of…
this is also why I consider typical employment to be "slavery, but partial". But comparing employment to slavery is a taboo
Twitter appears to have complied with removing the BBC documentary tweets for users in India. So some tweets are not available in India. It does look like Wikipedia is ahead of Twitter in the free speech absolutist game if it prefers being blocked to compliance.
You're comparing a group chat to an encyclopedia...
Wikipedia is also a "grup chat". Just look at the history of any page. (Hint: discussion).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd describe Twitter as closer to a news site in the modern era. There are a lot of journalists and other important public figures sharing information there, and that's especially true for important live news events like earthquakes. (Twitter is the first place I check if I feel the house shake, for example.)
Absolutely not. A news site presumes that a majority of the content on there is vetted, researched, and somewhat accurate within the bounds of typical news bias. Twitter is an open platform that anyone can say anything on. It's a social media site, and people happen to post their personal stories/experiences. Nothing more. I believe we wouldn't have such issues with misinformation if people stopped giving so much wei…
I don't know where you live, but here a news site is a site following political views or creating new stories which have nothing to do with reality.
"researched, and somewhat accurate" is below 1 pecent of the site content.
The creation of Pakistan is one of the biggest mistakes in modern history. The only country created on the basis of religion, thanks to the nonsensical Two Nation Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-nation_theory . It was created so Muslims can be safe in their own country, but ironically Muslims in India enjoy a way better life and future prospects. As an Indian I wish the country gets rid of its weird Muslim s…
The UK would like to politely dissagree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
A Wikipedia article, edited or altered!? Say it isn't so.
The point here isn't about editing or altering, it's about who gets to edit and alter.