51–60 of 506 posts
> Long-form reports by The Caravan and The Ken, along with reports by other media watchdogs have described the agency as serving as a propaganda tool of the incumbent government.[8][7][23] I wonder how long such a description of a US news outlet like CNN, Fox, NYT or WashPo would last on English Wikipedia.
Thank you. We're seeing a far more insidious and accelerating nationalization and politicization of reality. A very dangerous world ahead.
India has no right to control what the rest of the world sees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that the Indian court has legitimacy to block the article to be displayed worldwide. It has no jurisdicition for the citizens of all other countries and also no jurisdiction against content that is not hosted in India. But I guess that it was maybe more convenient for the wikimedia foundation to do it like that instead of doing geofencing that they might not have?
The legitimacy of Indian courts is something only Indian citizens and people living in India can decide. Other people may have opinions, but they are more or less irrelevant. Anyway, the fundamental issue here is that domestic rulings often have international consequences. As a sovereign state, India obviously has the right to ban the Wikimedia Foundation, or any other foreign entity, from doing business within the c…
I fundamentally disagree. The Indian State exists to serve its citizens, which are benefitted unambiguous by a free and unconstrained source like Wikipedia. The sovereignty of any state is subject to the benefit of its citizens, not the other way around.
That doesn't mean they won't try anyway, but let us not confuse what is technically or politically feasible with what is moral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get that pulling out of India would be an incredibly difficult move to even consider. But abandoning all principles should be as well.
Why is following other countries' laws viewed as "abandoning all principles"? A few days ago Linux removed all Russian maintainers to follow US laws. Has the Linux Foundation abandoned all principles? Should they have fought the US government?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Media has always been salacious nonsense — at least, judging from the 1880s English newspapers I’ve read as part of a research writing class: they’re full of complete lies about Jack the Ripper, for instance. Most of the discussion from government is using that perennial fact to justify suppressing true information — eg, suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story or people’s personal experiences with the COVID vac…
The chain of custody issues alone render the laptop story incredible
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/business/media/hunter-bid...
Excerpt:
> The laptop and some of its contents played a visible role in federal prosecutors’ case against the president’s son, who was charged with lying on a firearm application in 2018 by not disclosing his drug use. A prosecutor briefly held up the laptop before the jury in Delaware, and an F.B.I. agent later testified that messages and photos on it and in personal data that Mr. Biden had saved in cloud computing servers had made his drug use clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that the Indian court has legitimacy to block the article to be displayed worldwide. It has no jurisdicition for the citizens of all other countries and also no jurisdiction against content that is not hosted in India. But I guess that it was maybe more convenient for the wikimedia foundation to do it like that instead of doing geofencing that they might not have?
This is something I've been curious about for a while. GDPR, IIUC, makes an EU law apply to things that happen inside the US (for example, EU person flies to the US and uses Facebook on US-housed servers with data stored in the US, GDPR apparently considers that in-scope for the law).
That's a common myth. The GDPR doesn't follow citizenship, even if a lot of unofficial guidance wrongly says that.
US-based businesses that aren't branches of companies established in the EU, not targeting people in the EU, and not profiling or otherwise monitoring the behavior of people in the EU are not subject to the GDPR. And "in the EU" cares about where the person's body is, not who issued their passport.
This European Commission summary of GDPR's Article 3 (Territorial scope) is informative:
https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...
Here is Article 3 itself: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ (unofficial site but generally accurate)
And guidelines (PDF) about Article 3 from the European Data Protection Board: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/file1/e...
However, your scenario may fall in-scope of the GDPR for a simple reason: the Meta Terms of Service specify that the data controller for users (and non-users) living in the EU is Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, which is a company established in the EU. When the data processor or controller activities are through a company or branch established in the EU, the GDPR applies no matter where in the world the person and the data are.