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

481–490 of 506 posts

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#481

Post by account42 »

Aeolun wrote: post #389
nradov wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing nothing is working fine in the USA so far. Not all problems need to be solved, and sometimes the solution is worse than the problem.

I think a lot of people in Europe would disagree with that notion of fine There’s an image around the internet of a dog in a burning house saying ‘this is fine’. That’s the kind of fine I have in mind when I hear that.

Those europeans (and it definitely is not all europeans or even close to it if that is what you are insinuating) should first look at what their own governments are doing.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#482

Post by beretguy »

account42 wrote: post #474
beretguy wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason I use iPhone is because it's not a Google product. Coincidentally, iPhone is the only realistic alternative.

Do you really think it mattered whether the people in Jonestown drank Kool Aid or Flavour Aid? What matters is the poison and both Apple and Google ship plenty of it.

What options do I have? Not be a member of society?

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#483

Post by account42 »

happosai wrote: post #232
zmgsabst wrote: post #39

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…

It's weird how every single example of supposed suppression of information is something like "hunter Biden laptop" that has been reported in news ad nauseam.

The comment you are replying to has two examples, only one of which has to do with Hunter Biden.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#484

Post by account42 »

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…

The problem here is how you define harm. "Sticks and stones may break my bones But words shall never hurt me." used to be the commonly accepted Wisdom, and with that definition you don't need to controll what others are allowed to say. I don't think it's a coincidence that governments are all to happy to get rid of that sentiment for exposing their lies does harm them.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#485

Post by account42 »

kiba wrote: post #333
nradov wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the kind of lame excuse that fascists and elitists always resort to in order to increase their power and shut down speech they dislike. Freedom of expression is absolutely essential to the long-term future of humanity. If preserving that fundamental human right means that some emotionally fragile people start riots then so be it, that is an acceptable cost. Your "fact" is merely a matter of opinion.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. Obviously we shouldn't start riots, but if you make hate speech, there may be consequences accordingly.

And I'm sure in your mind you or those you approve of will be the ones to define what is "hate speech"?

Freedom of speech absolutely does mean not being prosecuted for your speech.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#486

Post by account42 »

sofixa wrote: post #209
nradov wrote: 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.

Pain is different from harm you know. When people's feelings are hurt by truth or even just my existence as a "white male" then sorry but that is not me harming you but you refusing to grow up.

Anyway, I'll believe that "progressives" actually care about how others feel when they start treating those not on board with their ideology with anything other than scorn or schadenfreude.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#487

Post by account42 »

lolinder wrote: post #112
ziofill wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not a fair comparison: land is finite in a way that the open internet isn’t.

Yep. It's hard for us to un-learn the instincts taught by millions of years of evolution. We see scarcity in everything, even where there is none.

Is it instinct at play here or is this what you are taught by those who depends on it?

In my experience people are more than happy to share if left to their own devices.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#488

Post by account42 »

anal_reactor wrote: post #168
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…

Internet transitioned from a fun toy for nerds to a serious tool used by the masses, and needs to be regulated accordingly. Looking back, it was extremely naive to think that even though we regulate every single aspect of social life, the internet would remain the bastion of freedom just because it would be cool if it did. Think about all the rules we have about what can and what cannot be said not to break social co…

We don't regulate letters or phone calls (not to mention in-person meetings) in the way that today's governments want to regulate the internet.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#490

Post by account42 »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #295
jampekka wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Wikipedia is often wrong once you stray from mainstream topics. Subspecialties often have 1-2 super-contributors, whose blind spots and misunderstandings become part of Wikipedia. Plenty of articles also have no actual citations of their technical content.

I'm honestly more concerned with how Wikipedia handles mainstream topics - i.e. the ones its editors are likely to have strong opinions about. Misunderstandings can be corrected with time, dogma on the other hand actively fights any correction.
Post reply on HN