Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

pta.gov.pk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 268 posts

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#231

Post by yamtaddle »

robertlagrant wrote: post #5

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.

This has been a major topic in political science at least since neoliberalism became the bi-partisan consensus world view of both viable US political parties in the mid to late '80s. Stateless corporations, neocolonialism, intergovernmental regulatory regimes, et c., et c. By the '00s, at the latest, it was probably at the top of a very short list of topics that were receiving a ton of attention in the field.

The Tobin Tax and other policy ideas in response to the whole thing, concerns about interconnectedness leading to economic fragility and new kinds of global economic risk (as in e.g. the '97 "Asian Contagion", a domino-effect economic collapse that was only stopped by massive foreign [largely US] and IGO [largely IMF] intervention), the implications for state sovereignty, all that stuff's been covered and considered extensively for quite a while.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#232

Post by nashashmi »

mjamil wrote: post #173
LarryMullins wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "a follower"? Is that another term for Muslim? Your accusation doesn't make sense to me.

No, nashashmi is implying hnews_account_1 is an adherent of the same Muslim splinter group (known as Ahmadis or pejoratively as Qadiyanis; see [1]) as Abdus Salam [2], the sole Nobel Laureate that Pakistan has ever has. Salam was a prominent 20th physicist who predicted the existence of the W and Z bosons and the electroweak force. nashashmi is gaslighting here by demonstrating two logical fallacies: both an appeal t…

What gaslighting? I never did curse. And I did not defend any country nor tarnish any group. What I did do is call out bias against a country and inappropriate behavior (cursing) in this forum.

I’m no authority on the subject of dispute. And I frankly don’t care on this topic to be an SJW. But I will not be ok with information bias against a country when the source belongs to a persecuted group.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#233

Post by hulitu »

sidlls wrote: post #34
auctoritas wrote: post #15

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?

"banned or blacklisted" vs "executed by the state". Definitely equivalent. The West, in general, within its own territory, is better on just about every civil rights issue than places like Pakistan and China. That doesn't mean it's good : places like Pakistan and China set a pretty low bar.

> The West, in general, within its own territory, is better on just about every civil rights issue than places like Pakistan and China.

" Another Bleedin Monty Python Website banner image image HomeTV Series Holy Grail Meaning of LifeLife of BrianSilly Links Life of Brian Script Scene 12: Brian Earns Jailor's Pet Title The sketch: eerie music

VOICE: Huo!

whip

VOICE: Hoo hoo hoo! Oh!

clank

whump

BRIAN: Eh.

clank

JAILER: Eh, heh heh ha. ptoo

BRIAN: Aah! Eh.

JAILER: Eh, heh heh. cough cough cough cough cough

BEN: You lucky bastard.

BRIAN: Who's that?

BEN: You lucky, lucky bastard.

BRIAN: What?

BEN: Proper little jailer's pet, aren't we?

BRIAN: What do you mean?

BEN: You must have slipped him a few shekels, eh?

BRIAN: Slipped him a few shekels? You saw him spit in my face!

BEN: Ohh! What wouldn't I give to be spat at in the face! I sometimes hang awake at night dreaming of being spat at in the face.

BRIAN: Well, it's not exactly friendly, is it? They had me in manacles!

BEN: Manacles! Ooh oooh oh oh. My idea of heaven is to be allowed to be put in manacles... just for a few hours. They must think the sun shines out o' your arse, sonny.

BRIAN: Oh, lay off me. I've had a hard time!

BEN: You've had a hard time?! I've been here five years! They only hung me the right way up yesterday! So, don't you come 'rou--

BRIAN: All right. All right.

BEN: They must think you're Lord God Almighty.

BRIAN: What will they do to me?

BEN: Oh, you'll probably get away with crucifixion.

BRIAN: Crucifixion?!

BEN: Yeah, first offence.

BRIAN: Get away with crucifixion?! It's--

BEN: Best thing the Romans ever did for us.

BRIAN: What?!

BEN: Oh, yeah. If we didn't have crucifixion, this country would be in a right bloody mess.

BRIAN: Guards!

BEN: Nail him up, I say!

BRIAN: Guards!

BEN: Nail some sense into him!

JAILER: cough cough What do you want?

BRIAN: I want you to move me to another cell.

JAILER: Ha! ptoo

BRIAN: Aah!

BEN: Oh, look at that! Bloody favoritism!

JAILER: Shut up, you!

BEN: Sorry!

JAILER: Huhh. cough cough

BEN: Now, take my case. They hung me up here five years ago. Every night, they take me down for twenty minutes, then they hang me up again, which I regard as very fair, in view of what I done, and, if nothing else, it's taught me to respect the Romans, and it's taught me... that you'll never get anywhere in this life, unless you're prepared to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay!

BRIAN: Oh, shut up!

clank

JAILER: Ehhh.

CENTURION: Pilate wants to see you!

BRIAN: Me?

CENTURION: Come on!

BRIAN: Pilate? What does he want to see me for?

CENTURION: I think he wants to know which way up you want to be crucified.

BEN: Oh, ha ha ha haa! Ha haa! Nice one, Centurion. Like it. Like it.

CENTURION: Shut up!

BEN: Right. Right. Terrific race, the Romans. Terrific."

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#235

Post by trompetenaccoun »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #54
beardyw wrote: post #23

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.

They don't care. They know people can get around the blocks. Wikipedia is more valuable with accurate content, even if some countries make it harder to access.

I don't know regarding Pakistan, but it isn't true that they generally don't care: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/06/13/wikimedia-fo...

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#236

Post by w0de0 »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #110
qwerty456127 wrote: post #24

I can hardly imagine an idea more ridiculous than "blasphemy". The G-d is not a psychologically immature human being easy to offend. Nothing a human might possibly say can change the state of G-d from perfect harmony to anything else.

Why are you selfcensoring "God"?

To avoid blasphemy.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#237

Post by BenjiWiebe »

bragr wrote: post #121
freeqaz wrote: post #81

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.)

USGS has a much better site for that. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/

Twitter can actually be faster than USGS, in my experience. USGS can have a several minute delay sometimes, and Twitter can be merely seconds late.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#238

Post by BenjiWiebe »

hulitu wrote: post #226
recuter wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing a group chat to an encyclopedia...

> 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).

So yes, that is a chat. However, >99.9% of views of Wikipedia are not the history/chat. Less sure about this one, but probably greater than 99% of people using Wikipedia don't even know that that exists.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#239

Post by robertlagrant »

babypuncher wrote: post #217
robertlagrant wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not automatically good. One of the most atheist governments was Soviet Russia, with the attendant horrifying death toll on its population.

When I say "no religion" I don't mean "state mandated atheism". I also don't think organized faith of any kind would have done anything to solve the problems with the Soviet Union. Especially when they were one despotic atheist state among countless despotic theocracies.

Fair enough. Separation of church and state has been progressing over the last thousand years. I surmised the only modern thing you could've been referring to was state atheism. Did you mean something different to both of those things?

> Especially when they were one despotic atheist state among countless despotic theocracies.

Not countless. They had plenty of democracies around them as well. And even if they hadn't, Communist China and Communist Russia's death tolls on their own populations make every other despot in history added up look like nothing.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#240

Post by robertlagrant »

noorkersz wrote: post #139
nathan_compton wrote: post #133

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

It's not taboo, it's just misleading. It's like someone falling over, grazing their knee and saying, "Wow, that was like dying, but partial". It doesn't share enough key attributes with the thing you're comparing it to to be useful.
Post reply on HN