Live data from Hacker News

Government orders GitHub to remove Bluetooth-based chat app Bitchat: Jack Dorsey

thehindu.com

421–430 of 476 posts

Re: Government orders GitHub to remove Bluetooth-based chat app Bitchat: Jack Dorsey

#421

Ooh definitely time to install this on my personal device then. Thanks Mr. Modi! Aside: oof yeah this seems like terrible policy and takes India off my bucket list.

Be careful. It seems a massive battery, CPU and memory drain. Be aware when it's running and when not.

Re: Government orders GitHub to remove Bluetooth-based chat app Bitchat: Jack Dorsey

#422
post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, why would I? Because your original comment was: > Weren't some of the German tourists last year sent to an ICE camp in Mexico?

Why would I need to know the name of the camp to remember that some people were sent to one? Should I also remember the name and ages of the tourists?

You think a Mexican would see a foreign government institution outside of an embassy and not raise a stink about it? Especially one that may hold citizens captive by a foreign body in their own land? You can't hide something like that. You wouldn't be able to hide the transport either. You'd be able to find it as easily as Guantanamo pops up when you search "us camp in cuba". No such thing when you search "us camp in mexico".

Re: Government orders GitHub to remove Bluetooth-based chat app Bitchat: Jack Dorsey

#423

Lets imagine that github does give in and it does take down bitchat, will it result in the death (or at least a huge loss) for github? I mean of course a lot of open-source projects on github won't feel safe when they know that github can easily give in to the government pressure. Plus the general state of github right now is already causing projects to migrate to some better alternatives.

GitHub is currently a dead zombie, but it won't get any deader from this than it did when it deleted a bunch of stuff to please the Russian government or the American government.

Re: Government orders GitHub to remove Bluetooth-based chat app Bitchat: Jack Dorsey

#424

Too bad it operates on Nostr, which is crypto-adjacent, otherwise they could move to Codeberg.

Not any more though, right? Didn’t we just learn that Codeberg now bans vibe-coded projects, and that’s how Jack developed it?

He should talk to the codeberg guys anyway. They may grant an exception if the app is widely used and useful.

Re: Government orders GitHub to remove Bluetooth-based chat app Bitchat: Jack Dorsey

#425
post #111

I sincerely hope that Microsoft responds with "If the Indian government wants to block content hosted on U.S. servers, they are more than welcome to set up their own Great Firewall."

and just stop doing business in a country with 17% of the world population? fat chance :)

But how much of the world's GitHub revenue? That's the important thing.

Re: Government orders GitHub to remove Bluetooth-based chat app Bitchat: Jack Dorsey

#429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I haven't figured out how to flag a comment as offense - but the term "zog soldier" is anti-semitic and does not belong on HN.

Remember, when the time comes: traitors first.

Re: Government orders GitHub to remove Bluetooth-based chat app Bitchat: Jack Dorsey

#430
post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Largely uncited and generalised exposition of Bangladeshi's misses other factors which could be involved in their decision towards distrust of India. It's reasonable to distrust a neighboring country with distinct interest, even if they went to war for you, sure. You don't owe them anything. Similarly, it's actually also normal for India to have concerns about illegal migration, similar to Europe, America, Australi…

You are collapsing different propositions into one: There is anti-Hindu persecution in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Therefore Bangladeshi distrust of India is mainly religious. Therefore Hindutva is essentially a defensive reaction rather than a political movement. I accept the first proposition. The others do not follow from it. Bangladesh has entirely intelligible state-to-state grievances with India, unresolved Teesta…

The UN declaration is retarded because Indian law is not and has never been neutral to religion. If you believe it should be, then you are on the side of the BJP. This is why such things cannot be reduced so simply to American biased left right ideals.

South Asian Muslims often want it both ways. When India got rid of triple talaaq divorce, south Asian Muslims at my American college demanded a protest to criticize Indias supposed religious discrimination. Meanwhile, you act as if Bangladesh has not given India and Indians reasons to dislike it

This is the problem with discourse about India. The expectation is always that India needs to change and it's neighbor's behavior, regardless of how unhinged, is just seen as a simple matter of unchangeable fact.

> Your claim that Jews “never made such an argument” makes the selectiveness more apparen

You took no time to read or understand what I said and instead assumed I was talking about European Jews. I am not

I am talking about Indian Jews. In that sentence about neither Christians nor Jews nor parsis not sikhs nor jains claiming to be separate nations, I was referring to Indian christians, Indian Jews, Indian parsis, Indian sikhs and Indian jains.

None of these religious groups claimed they were not part of the cultural nation of India. No one made arguments like Jinnah who claimed that Indian Muslims and everyone else (who he called Hindus.. he called all non Muslims Hindus) constituted two distinct nations.

Not everything is about Europeans and European Jews. India has its own Jews. While some were sympathetic to Zionism, most were integrated into Indian society writ large and many participated in the independence movement for India.

> saying that Americans cannot understand Islamist extremism

These sorts of things (terror attacks) are of course awful, but in India it's a different story. Firstly there's just more, and more fooled plots. But more than that, it's the aggressive nature of the religion. It's the loud calls to prayer, the public street takeovers, the slaughter of animals in the streets full of blood, etc (much of which is banned in Muslim countries) that annoy the hell out of people.

Up until recently Muslims could claim any piece of private land and then privately judge whether such a claim had legal merit. Landowners were left without any possibility of appeal. Imagine such a thing in america, lol.

American communities that have seen large influxes of Muslims smaller than the population of Muslims in India by a lot have lodged similar complaints. I mean, when the government tries to stop the streets from being filled with lambs blood, Indian Muslims complain that it's discrimination. Americans would quickly become radicalized if that happened in an American city.

Europe is a great example. The Muslim population of Europe is miniscule but Europeans are even more vitriolic against them than Indians. And even European liberal parties have seen the issues. Of course it's only when India takes actions against this that claims of islamophobia arise. When macron bans the burqa, people default to it being for cultural preservation and safety.

Post reply on HN