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

Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 506 posts

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#121

Post by tomrod »

Legend2440 wrote: post #106
tomrod wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like an authoritarian government that should be ignored.

Governments have ways of making themselves difficult to ignore.

Do they? What is the administrative division of governance in Liechtenstein?

I don't know, and you might, but we mostly live blissfully unaware in the undergirding bueracracy that surrounds us.

And if Liechtenstein calls for my head for saying that I know nothing about them, fantastic. I'll still never hear about it. The have no power where I am.

But a government threatens an internationally beloved and fundamental institution built by the volunteering work of individuals across the globe for the pure love of sharing knowledge because it accurately made a statement? The Indian high court may as well allow universal atrocities for all the respect for sovereignty it will generate at home and abroad.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#122

Post by thimabi »

tomrod wrote: post #116
thimabi wrote: post #115

I’d like to clear up some misconceptions about jurisdiction going on in this thread, purely from the perspective of international law. As a matter of sovereignty, a state can exercise judicial jurisdiction over its territory, over its nationals, over national security concerns and over the most grave crimes. A state’s jurisdiction can apply even to foreign people/companies who have no presence in said state at all. W…

It's not the way it is, unless people accept it as such. Sorry, but VPNs exist, Wikipedia is inherently clonable and downloadable. Silicon rock beats Indian paper courts, any way you slice it, unless Wikipedia chooses to back down. They shouldn't.

I agree that the decision is wrong and unfair, and that it can be easily circumvented. That does not negate India’s right to legislate as it wants, nor does it prevent the Indian government from repressing citizens who choose to defy the law.

It’s very unfortunate, but there is more to this case than simply negating a country’s jurisdiction or encouraging nationals to challenge it.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#123

Post by tomrod »

rembicilious wrote: post #118
ivewonyoung wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't work, see Brazil vs X. Censorship friendly competitors BlueSky and Threads swooped in and took away X's users and revenue. BlueSky couldn't stop boasting how many users it got from the fiasco, and their posts were highly upvoted on HN and celebrated.

There’s plenty of hate for X on HN and abroad. I don’t think the crowd on HN is going to have the same reaction to Wikimedia taking a hardline stance against censorship. Blocking the world’s foremost encyclopaedia vs blocking an extremely popular gossip app. Sadly, an Indian competitor would appear, probably by ripping off Wikimedia’s own content.

Correct. Because X is controlled by a ideological demogogue who has become the very thing he railed against that never was before him.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#124

Post by dartharva »

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.

It's not just the newer generations. I have multiple friends who are literally afraid of using ad blockers and sideloading apps on their Macs in fear of some imaginary boogeyman out to get them. And VPNs are exclusively the domain of criminals, apparently. There are a dominating amount of people who have turned into the caricature of the perfect CONSUMER. It is so frustrating.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#125

Post by nradov »

ants_everywhere wrote: post #69
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…

I mean it's a pretty fundamental tenet of liberty that you have the freedom to do things only to the extent that you don't harm others. And it's a simple consequence of scaling that the more massively you scale a communication system like the internet the more pathways there are for person A to harm person B. So naturally there end up being more cases evaluating harm that involve the internet. Some of those cases wil…

Most of these cases don't involve any actual harm beyond hurt feelings, so that's largely a red herring.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#126

Post by tomjen3 »

Legend2440 wrote: post #106
tomrod wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like an authoritarian government that should be ignored.

Governments have ways of making themselves difficult to ignore.

Usually the worst that happens for services in foreign countries is that they get blocked, and wikipedia will survive not being accessible in India.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#128

Post by nradov »

tomrod wrote: post #85
OutOfHere wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way in which this could be possible, if not via VPNs, is via everyone have direct satellite internet, which is a bit difficult without good line of sight. It would also require an independent means of payment like layer II of bitcoin. The better answer would be one where the ISPs don't have any ability to block websites. Web3 technologies could make it possible.

That's not quite accurate. E2EE, mesh networks, and similar are also available alternative technologies. Satellites are still corporate-driven (necessarily) or government driven and thus can be focal points to block.

Mesh networks are a nice idea in theory but none of them have succeeded at scale. There are some serious unresolved technical problems with discovery and routing. And even if those are solved, how do you incentivize enough people to participate in order to maintain adequate coverage?

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#129

Post by theturtletalks »

tomjen3 wrote: post #126
Legend2440 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments have ways of making themselves difficult to ignore.

Usually the worst that happens for services in foreign countries is that they get blocked, and wikipedia will survive not being accessible in India.

If the choice is between revealing editors and exiting India altogether, doesn't seem like a hard choice. The people in India will suffer without Wikipedia, but most have VPNs to access blocked sites anyways.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#130

Post by dartharva »

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.

For context, The Caravan is a magazine by the Delhi Press Group that presents itself as "fighting against obscurantism and authoritarianism", and has a big record of getting into legal fights with all kinds of people and organizations (listed here: https://caravanmagazine.in/pages/about-us).

The Ken is just a business news startup out of Bangalore.

Post reply on HN