Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

pta.gov.pk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 268 posts

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#51

Post by rootusrootus »

whizzter wrote: post #35
LinuxBender wrote: post #4

I would love wag the finger but first I would have to clean up my own country, the United States of America. When the US government stops pressuring social media platforms to censor speech and they stop happily complying then perhaps I might have room to criticize other nations. [Edit] And how should this be addressed in the US? Simple. Only censor things that are explicitly and clearly illegal under federal law and…

US Laws are why people aren't posting classic European art because one nipple and you're gone.

What laws, exactly? US Wikipedia has many images far more graphic than a nipple. We have television with full frontal nudity (both genders). Maybe you're thinking of broadcast television, which does have relatively strong restrictions before 10pm (IIRC, could be off on the exact time of day).

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#52

Post by recuter »

cactusplant7374 wrote: post #43

Twitter appears to have complied with removing the BBC documentary tweets for users in India. So some tweets are not available in India. It does look like Wikipedia is ahead of Twitter in the free speech absolutist game if it prefers being blocked to compliance.

You're comparing a group chat to an encyclopedia...

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#53

Post by skitter »

beardyw wrote: post #23
flipbrad wrote: post #2

"Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has degraded Wikipedia services in the country on account of not blocking / removing sacrilegious contents. Wikipedia was approached for blocking / removal of the said contents by issuing a notice under applicable law and court order(s). An opportunity of hearing was also provided, however, the platform neither complied by removing the blasphemous content nor appeared befor…

I am trying to think why Wikipedia would care about this. They offer a free service - if you don't want it that's just disappointing.

Because people who don't want to access Wikipedia already can decide to not access it, but the ones who want to can't. Pakistan is not a singular person.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#54

Post by throwaway09223 »

beardyw wrote: post #23
flipbrad wrote: post #2

"Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has degraded Wikipedia services in the country on account of not blocking / removing sacrilegious contents. Wikipedia was approached for blocking / removal of the said contents by issuing a notice under applicable law and court order(s). An opportunity of hearing was also provided, however, the platform neither complied by removing the blasphemous content nor appeared befor…

I am trying to think why Wikipedia would care about this. They offer a free service - if you don't want it that's just disappointing.

They don't care. They know people can get around the blocks.

Wikipedia is more valuable with accurate content, even if some countries make it harder to access.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#55

Post by acdha »

serverholic wrote: post #19
bryan0 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s plenty of room to criticize both

What I’ve realized is that people in general are largely incapable of nuance. - Things are either bad or good. - Only one side can be right which means the other side is automagically wrong. - Multiple things can’t be true at the same time. - etc.

I think it's also worth remembering that this isn't just some random quirk but something actively cultivated by many social groups. Many religious encourage that us-versus-them divide because it's a very effective mechanism for keeping people from leaving (my experience with this was fundamentalist Christianity where shunning was practiced so anyone breaking with official doctrine was going to have to give up most of their friends/family and possibly even a marriage), and the Republican Party relies on the “help, we're being oppressed!” mythology to keep people riled up and donating/voting no matter who the candidate is.

In both cases, tolerating nuance would make it harder to control the message since disagreement could lead to power shifting away from the current top of the hierarchy. Unsurprisingly the people who benefit from that are strongly opposed to sharing.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#56

Post by scientism019324 »

hnews_account_1 wrote: post #46
boomboomsubban wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article https://www.geo.tv/latest/468510-pakistan-warns-blocking-wik... says depictions of Muhammad and saying this person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Masroor_Ahmad is a Muslim. I'm not sure if that press conference was over the 2020 issue or the current one.

They disowned their one Nobel laureate and maybe one of the greatest minds of his generation because of his Islam being different from their Islam. That place is a failed nation. Thank fuck for the internet so the people aren’t insulated from the outside world.

Same thing happened to James Watson.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#57

Post by nailer »

pen2l wrote: post #50

Previously there was a comment that was quite elucidative made by an HN user here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34304824 In recent years I've come around to viewing the American ideal of absolute "free speech" as not being all that nuanced, particularly because we know know the speed at which viral false and illegitimate claims travel and the slower speed at which reasoned responses to those speech travel. I…

Absolutely disagree. The trend of censoring people that depict Mohammed is relatively recent - nobody cared about the Superfriends episode back around 2000 - and giving in to it gives grounds to the same people that attack ex-Muslims for leaving Islam.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#58

Post by Karsteski »

cactusplant7374 wrote: post #42
auctoritas wrote: post #15

Similar things are happening in the West given US and Euro govts leaning on Social Media companies to censor dissenting/blasphemous views. Just think - what are you not allowed to say? What will get you banned or blacklisted?

How similar is it though? The US sent emails with suggestions to Twitter. Pakistan is threatening/will block Wikipedia.

What would have happened had Twitter not complied with said suggestions? To the company, to the executives, to regular employees?

The threat of that is very real.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#59

Post by ghaff »

pen2l wrote: post #50

Previously there was a comment that was quite elucidative made by an HN user here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34304824 In recent years I've come around to viewing the American ideal of absolute "free speech" as not being all that nuanced, particularly because we know know the speed at which viral false and illegitimate claims travel and the slower speed at which reasoned responses to those speech travel. I…

We can probably all agree that a great many things on the web are considered in poor taste by someone somewhere in the world. That doesn't mean that web content should be limited to things that no one anywhere considers in poor taste.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#60

Post by DharmaPolice »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #24

I can hardly imagine an idea more ridiculous than "blasphemy". The G-d is not a psychologically immature human being easy to offend. Nothing a human might possibly say can change the state of G-d from perfect harmony to anything else.

That doesn't match the Abrahamic conception of God though which is the point here. In fact, that God is almost the opposite of what you've described.
Post reply on HN