Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

en.wikipedia.org

271–280 of 506 posts

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#271

There are a lot of lessons to learn here 1. The Streisand effect. No-one on HN gave a monkeys about this dodgy news agency till today. Now half of us have read the archive about how they promote propaganda & fake news. Your reputation takes a hit 2. There is no absolute definition of “freedom”. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for humanity in general and I think should be defended. But as more and more of humanity c…

Streisand effect is oversold.

It is temporary as heck. People will forget about anything, no matter the extent of Streisand effect and go onto the next tictok video or whatever.

Who gives a flying fk anyways about an article on wikipedia.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#272

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…

>Have governments become more authoritarian? Or has our energy for resistance just been slowly whittled away?

Nah, this stuff has been going on forever. See the death of Socrates for example for 'corrupting the youth of Athens' by his speech. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Socrates)

Or more recent and a very good movie (imdb all time #61) is Lives of Others about trying to smuggle some info out of East Germany. And a million other examples.

The internet has made things much easier as the tech is hard to censor.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#273
post #270

There are a lot of lessons to learn here 1. The Streisand effect. No-one on HN gave a monkeys about this dodgy news agency till today. Now half of us have read the archive about how they promote propaganda & fake news. Your reputation takes a hit 2. There is no absolute definition of “freedom”. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for humanity in general and I think should be defended. But as more and more of humanity c…

Wikipedia looks like a fantastic resource, but it's not really a reliable source of information. Everyone can write things there, including people with biases and conflicting interests. Their rules about editing are really annoying and unfair, they don't care about facts. I enjoy reading Wikipedia sometimes, but it's a broken system, a lot of truths missing in it's articles because of crap editors and political propa…

> Wikipedia looks like a fantastic resource, but it's not really a reliable source of information.

It's about as reliable it gets. It cites sources, has whole history available, has little conflicts of interest and has transparent editorial guidelines and process.

Many people are probably shocked to find views in WP that aren't aligned with what their newsmedia reports and frames.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#274
As an Indian, you cannot understand the despair this makes me feel. ANI is a bit like privatised Pravda operating in service to the government, yet, still pretending to be independent journalism. Wherever there is a critic of the government, ANI exists to slander such critics as a service.

As a discerning reader, you learn to avoid mainstream media that quotes ANI (don't even consider watching a TV channel). You seek out alternate information sources. As the entity aligns closer with the ruling party and the mega-corporations like Adani that are aligned with it, you basically witness an octopus take over all information communication in India.

Then you get harsher and harsher laws regulating social media. You get no new laws protecting your speech. You witness a general fatalism set in on the few Indian comment sections that still think this stuff is wrong. But one day you see it on HN and realise everyone is basically powerless here.

Foolish maybe, but I genuinely hoped the open and open-sourced side of the internet would transcend borders. There must exist an information ecosystem that is above government. But Linux bans Russian devs, wikipedia is blocked worldwide because they wouldn't reveal an editor's biodata to India, social media platforms regulating information appoint information officers to enforce dictatorial government orders.

Where is the technology that can challenge this? At what point can the principle of "code is law" support free human expression instead of serving the whims of the latest oppressive regime?

I would implore any devs making open-source censorship-proof tools to consider the Indian context as ground zero.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#275
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not sure what cases you are referring to, but “Hurt feelings” in India have caused multiple riots, resulting in utter carnage, spilling over to years, decades longs strings of terrorism and reprisals against minorities. Feelings are the reason people get up to live in the morning. I get why we used to make that statement. In a way it’s about rationality mattering, and how feelings being hurt are different from actual…

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#276
post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you, I think it's inevitable that governments, maybe eventually all, will abuse the power they have to censor the internet. It is important that fraud charges can be reversed and people like Alex Jones shut up, but if the normal internet becomes too restricted and an alternative free one where crime is rampant is the only place to get a lot of information, that's where people will go. While I too w…

The opposite of censoring is putting out information at scale. What if the Chinese government decides to generate so much information at so much scale that people start believing it? Advertisements work, do they not? Saturate the internet with speech, so much speech that speech loses meaning.

> What if the Chinese government decides to generate so much information at so much scale that people start believing it?

What if people respond to such a scenario by choosing not to believe Chinese misinformation?

When leaning into damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't arguments about free speech, I prefer to favour the side that's against censorship. Let the people decide how they will handle their information. You really don't get good examples of governments using such powers nobly

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#277
post #270

There are a lot of lessons to learn here 1. The Streisand effect. No-one on HN gave a monkeys about this dodgy news agency till today. Now half of us have read the archive about how they promote propaganda & fake news. Your reputation takes a hit 2. There is no absolute definition of “freedom”. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for humanity in general and I think should be defended. But as more and more of humanity c…

Wikipedia looks like a fantastic resource, but it's not really a reliable source of information. Everyone can write things there, including people with biases and conflicting interests. Their rules about editing are really annoying and unfair, they don't care about facts. I enjoy reading Wikipedia sometimes, but it's a broken system, a lot of truths missing in it's articles because of crap editors and political propa…

I mostly fact check and do notable research for obscure Wikipedia articles. This is usually a no drama environment sure I have helped delete articles that later became notable and removed true facts lacking sources. Many of these things have fixed themselves over time. My biggest fear with Wikipedia is citogenesis https://xkcd.com/978/ I have found one in a major news paper, this took three months to take down.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#278

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.

Some users even support this these days. From "the law is the law" and "you shouldn't be in business if you can't follow the laws" to "serves them right for having X opinion!"

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#279
post #209
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are you saying that hurt feelings aren't harm? Words can hurt too you know, e.g. popular black footballers getting racist abuse anytime they go online is harmful to their mental health; trans people being told to kill themselves because they're Satan's spawn and pedophiles and what not also take severe hits to their mental health.

you need to acknowledge the difference between telling you to kill yourself vs killing you. One is clearly more harmful than the other.

then imagine living with free speech vs with no free speech. One is clearly better.

combining the two ideas, there is always going to be a gray zone in the middle. It is not obvious at all that where you want to draw the line is optimal.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#280
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be fair, adblockers have an inordinate amount of access. We all trust uBlock’s creator but I’ve never met him. So it’s a realistic risk but we (hope) not a threat

>To be fair, chromium has an inordinate amount of access. We all trust chromium’s developers but I’ve never met them. So it’s a realistic risk but we (hope) not a threat.

>To be fair, Windows has an inordinate amount of access. We all trust Microsoft developers but I’ve never met them. So it’s a realistic risk but we (hope) not a threat.

I can keep going to point out how flawed this line of reasoning is, especially the second one with forced push for Recall.

Post reply on HN