Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

Post by Sabinus » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 5:39 AM UTC

zmgsabst wrote: post #58

selimthegrim wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The chain of custody issues alone render the laptop story incredible

Tell that to the courts, I guess. 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 testifie…

Post by marcus_holmes » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 5:42 AM UTC

thimabi wrote: post #122

tomrod wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by ruthmarx » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 5:45 AM UTC

josephg wrote: post #62

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. Good, trustworthy governance. I think its childish to try and make an ungovernable internet. Nobody actually wants to live in an ungovernable world. We want fraudulent credit card charges to be reversable. We want the parents of the victims of Sandy Hook to be able to get alex jones to shut up. I don't think pushing further to make the law…

Post by ruthmarx » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 5:46 AM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #176

ruthmarx wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia is an especially bad country in this regard.

It's all "beer and barbie on the beach" until you realise that's all illegal.

Post by Iulioh » Sat, Oct 26, 2024, 5:50 AM UTC

dartharva wrote: post #124

typewithrhythm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.