Since when does Delhi high court have worldwide jurisdiction?
Since Wikipedia folded to their demands. The correct action would have been to black out India, but they chose otherwise
Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court
101–110 of 506 posts
Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court
#102Earlier 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…
iCloud isn’t the laptop, let’s be clear
Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court
#103Why is it blocked worldwide? Should the page be geofenced instead?
Similar to the enigma of how a court case in India blocks sci-hub from adding new papers for other countries?
That's on sci-hub actually, Elbakyan seems to think that an Indian court ruling is something that matters so much that she crippled sci-hub for it. She could turn it back on whenever she wants.
contra mundum court orders aren't new however, the Brits like to issue them with varying levels of success.
Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the court order specifies that it be taken down worldwide, and the court order isn't definitely illegal according to Indian law, and the Wikimedia Foundation has operations in India that they want to preserve, they may not have a choice.
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 problem is that as long as the court thinks it has legitimacy, and the guys with the guns agree, then it doesn't matter whether it "objectively" or by someone else's opinion has legitimacy. It doesn't matter who is "right", it matters who has which power.
Unlike the US, courts from India likely have limited power to affect Wikipedia operations outside of India. However, they can potentially send people to arrest anyone associated with the Wikimedia Foundation within India, and potentially keep them in jail until Wikimedia complies. (They can also have Wikipedia and donations flowing to the foundation blocked in a country representing something like 1/6th of the global population.)
Edit to add: Wikimedia on the other hand, has the power to block the article, then lean back with a giant bucket of popcorn knowing that it will achieve the exact opposite of what the court wanted to achieve.
Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court
#105I can understand shutting it down to Indian IP ranges, but the whole world? I think they should have stood up to the Indian court and took wikipedia offline for India, otherwise soon there will be avalanche of demands to take down anything negative about modi, trump, xi, and putin.
Shutting it down in India is losing your second biggest user base.
Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Sounds like an authoritarian government that should be ignored.
Governments have ways of making themselves difficult to ignore.
Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just politics... Replace "open internet" with "land" and imagine countries (ie people) are attempting to block others access to some resource. It was naive to assume that the internet wouldn't adhere the nature of our reality.
That’s not a fair comparison: land is finite in a way that the open internet isn’t.
Human attention and energy is relatively limited though, and the medium of the Internet and its control is just for that
Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court
#108Earlier 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.
Dividing the world into normies and others is a very odd way to characterise widespread adoption of anything. I hesitate to use the neckbeard word, but it's got overtones. There are as many usefully curated sites, as sites where state actors curate content to hide the reptile led barcode truth from the normies.
The nomenclature could use some polish, but on HN we know they mean ability to bypass technological restrictions
.
Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just politics... Replace "open internet" with "land" and imagine countries (ie people) are attempting to block others access to some resource. It was naive to assume that the internet wouldn't adhere the nature of our reality.
That’s not a fair comparison: land is finite in a way that the open internet isn’t.
In fact, the most valuable resource on the internet is finite: atention with the possibility of influence those who give it to you. This is already a question of national security.
Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> India obviously has the right to ban the Wikimedia Foundation I don’t think that’s obvious at all. In the US, constitutional rights to freedom of speech, assembly, etc apply regardless of nationality or citizenship status.
You are placing too much weight on constitutions. They are just temporary documents a sovereign state can rewrite at any time for any reason. Either by the process established in the existing constitution. Or by having a civil war or a revolution, with the winners deciding that the old constitution is void, because its supporters lost.
I think there’s a difference between human rights and legal rights. For instance people in North Korea have a right to freedom of thought, all people everywhere do, but that doesn’t mean their government recognises that right, or that they have the legal right. India, mind you, doesn’t have the legal right to block me from viewing this Wikipedia article in Australia, but it seems like they have the ability to do so.
I guess ultimately this comes down to whether you believe a government and the rights it enforces is legitimate because it has the biggest guns, or because that government was decided by the people, or the legitimacy is determined by the ethics of the government etc