Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

Post by ggm » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 1:11 AM UTC

typewithrhythm wrote: post #61

lolinder wrote: post #17

On January 18 2012, Wikipedia went black to draw attention to SOPA [0], a bill they described as one that "could fatally damage the free and open Internet". Since then, we've seen a slow and steady march in the direction we all dreaded. Country after country has decided that they have the right to block content on the "free and open Internet", and business after business (even those who joined the SOPA protests) has…

As more normies got on the web more of it becomes about how to herd them. In the early days there was less gain from authoritarian actions, because you are more likely to be resisted by the users of any service. The current users don't know how to bypass restrictions, and are generally more numerous. Making authoritarian actions more valuable. Unfortunately this leads to previously useful sites declining.

Post by smogcutter » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 1:23 AM UTC

jltsiren wrote: post #44

greatgib wrote: post #14

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…

Post by kibwen » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 1:36 AM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #70

einpoklum wrote: post #28

> 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.

From the Fox News Wikipedia article >Fox News has been characterized by many as a propaganda organization.[24][25][26][27][28] Its coverage has included biased and false reporting in favor of the Republican Party, its politicians, and conservative causes,[29][30][31] while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News Too lazy to check the others. The NYT undoubtedly has…

Post by catlikesshrimp » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 1:41 AM UTC

praveen9920 wrote: post #26

fwipsy wrote: post #15

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International covers the lawsuit as well. "In July 2024, ANI filed a lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundation in the Delhi High Court — claiming to have been defamed in its article on Wikipedia — and sought ₹2 crore (US$240,000) in damages.[16][17][18] On 5 September, the Court threatened to hold Wikimedia guilty of contempt for failing to disclose information about the editors…

No. You read the statements right. Indian judges tend to give such statements, sometimes even worse. For example, recently one judge in unrelated case gave a statement that “criminalising marital rape is bit harsh”. The main problem in this case is that Wikimedia hasn’t complied YET with high court orders of revealing people who did the edits. ANI just went ahead and filed contempt of court case before Wiki legal tea…

Post by ivewonyoung » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 1:44 AM UTC

driverdan wrote: post #80

alwayslikethis wrote: post #42

I wonder what would be an effective countermeasure against stuff like this. Maybe we need a write-only global database and somehow separate the hosting/publisher from the organization that certifies it. Imagine if they simply sign an archive which is distributed over IPFS or some other distributed system. It would become impossible to take down content and as such impossible to comply with any blocking orders. They c…

> I wonder what would be an effective countermeasure against stuff like this. You withdraw all operations from within that country and you don't comply.