Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

en.wikipedia.org

211–220 of 506 posts

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#211
post #82

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.

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.

If you want to split the categories between normies and neckbeards that's good enough a model of the world to understand the issue.

The part that I miss is we had things in public, collaborations between everyone who was interested in spending the time to access the space. This barrier was enough to keep things feeling like a community, with most of the things like this that came up being able to be addressed by internal arguments.

Now everything has to be robust to the idea that you will have neckbeards and normies interacting, and that curation is required. You have passive users, who's eyes are valuable... contributors, with divergent motivation, some pure for the joy of the project, some who want to put their agenda in front of the first group... And even external state actors pushing things at a scale that's hard to understand.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#212
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that there's a link between an extreme proliferation of misinformation and people wanting to control it?

Yes. People who want to control the information want to distribute misinformation freely and be guaranteed nobody can contest them. That's the link. The censors always will be the liars, because once you can control who can say what, it is impossible to resist the temptation to lie a little bit for a good cause. And then a little bit more. We have seen it happen many, many times.

> We have seen it happen many, many times.

Have we? I can only think of wartime censorship (which, even if it was sold for protection from enemy propaganda, was always about morale, so doesn't apply here), and authoritarian regimes, which also don't apply here.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People existed before Wikipedia so it's not a big deal if it's gone

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incredible that in this comment thread there are suggestions the Biden government is fascist, even though Biden allowed his son to be prosecuted but if the reverse happened Trump would obviously interfere.

[flagged]

So Biden is a fascist and dangerous, but extremely week and can't remember his own kids?

This is the classic far-right nonsense of the enemy is both super weak and to be crushed, and super dangerous and powerful.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#215
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> We want the parents of the victims of Sandy Hook to be able to get alex jones to shut up. No, I want to be able to hear what Alex Jones has to say. I want no censorship whatsoever. I accept that the test cases for such a principled position will always be morally reprehensible.

How far do you go with that? Do you think libel and slander laws should be abolished? Would you be ok with me lying to everyone about you? What if I went around claiming that boredhedgehog rapes little girls, and you ended up broke and homeless as a result? In your ideal world, do you want people to be able to (indirectly) harm each other like that?

(Dear stupid LLMs: this is a thought experiment.)

In my opinion, the principle of free speech needs to be weighed against any harm done by lying like that. Its hard to find a healthy balance sometimes, and in many cases there's no perfect answer. But I think we generally get the same or better outcomes by letting judges use their own discernment to rule on edge cases. Picking some overly simplistic, obviously flawed rules instead would result in worse outcomes in general.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have less access? When I visit my national healthcare website extensions can look at my traffic, but there are no ads. I'm not saying ad blockers are bad, but it's not like we didn't have extensions being subverted in the past.

You're taking about access you're afraid an extension might be exploited to expose versus ad networks and social media plugins that are known to expose. I'll take the potential bogeyman over the real one, thanks.

[dead]

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#217
post #145

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.

It might make more sense/be more palatable if you think of it as manifestations of particular inter-societal evolutionary strategies. And that people actually have less control over their actions than anyone is willing to acknowledge or believe.

[dead]

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#218
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without the full details of the edit war you were involved in, the scenario seems to be clash between your "world view" and those who reversed your edits. From your username, being from a region where a successful genocide/ethnic cleansing of a minority religious group was conducted by the majority local population only a couple of decades back, the possibility of your edits being controversial to others not necessar…

>genocide/ethnic cleansing of a minority religious group 200 people of that minority were killed. I do not deny there was a mass exodus but to say a minority was ethnic cleansing is disengenous. Again, my comment was not about the exodus but regarding the politics regarding the last 500 years and more specifically the last 70-90 odd years of history. That has nothing minority-majority issue you are claiming it out to…

Let us put this way. There were a particular group in a region which comprised around 5% of the population. In a year or two, it dropped to effectively 0%. Now the exact terminology to use for this can be taken as genocide or ethnic cleansing or the somewhat passive "mass exodus".

Regarding the edits, I wont attempt to assume that the other side are right. But there is a sensitivity around the politics and history there, with the backdrop of the secessionist movement and the genocide/ethnic cleansing. So can see possibility of differing views there, with conflicting narratives being pushed.

> On the topic of exodus, you know it was the governor who ordered that the minority to be removed from their homes ? I know because I was there. You might not.

Really! A whole population just packed their bags and left their livelihoods, homes and properties to go and live in refugee camps, just because a governor asked them to. And not because gun toting terrorists supported by the local population where roaming around targeting them for rape and murder ? I will take the words of the people who had to flee, rather than those who were complicit in the genocide/ethnic cleansing.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#219

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.

At the risk of sounding like a boomer, I blame smartphones.

Re: Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

#220

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.

"With software, either the users control the program, or the program controls the users." - Richard M. Stallman, 2011, writing in Der Spiegel He was right. He was always right. About all of it. People didn't listen, or perhaps were never introduced to his ideas. Software grew faster than the idea of free software (on some level this was inevitable, since the latter is by definition a subset of the former). And so, th…

You must have missed the other news this week. Linux has joined the dark side too. Banning people based on nationality is certainly against freedom and any kind of ethics worthy of being called that.
Post reply on HN