Just a friendly and touchy reminder that these sort of laws need to be implemented with the utmost care if they are to be implemented at all. Else here is a real world example of them being...
ANI argued that Wikipedia is a significant social media "intermediary" within the definition of Information Technology Act, 2000, and must therefore comply with the requirements of the Act, including taking down any content that the government or its agencies deem violative, or be personally liable for content published under its platform.
Just a friendly and touchy reminder that these sort of laws need to be implemented with the utmost care if they are to be implemented at all. Else here is a real world example of them being utilized by corporations and government officials to stifle information and force identification of anonymous dissidents.
The funny thing about Wikipedia the organization, is that even if they collapsed because of bad legislation like this, Wikipedia the data, because of its copy left license, would still be around,...
The funny thing about Wikipedia the organization, is that even if they collapsed because of bad legislation like this, Wikipedia the data, because of its copy left license, would still be around, if more difficult to access until someone gets it hosted again.
I fully believe wikipedia is only even complying (for now) for the sake of the people of India's access to the information in wikipedia, as it is, in the long term. In terms of impact, it's not a...
I fully believe wikipedia is only even complying (for now) for the sake of the people of India's access to the information in wikipedia, as it is, in the long term. In terms of impact, it's not a super effective court order compared to all of wikipedia being blocked in India.
But if India really is going down this path, it might be only a matter of time.
To give some more context: Jimbo Wales made a comment explaining some of the WMF's reasoning here. It appears the decision here was to remove the page temporarily in order to comply with the legal...
To give some more context: Jimbo Wales made a comment explaining some of the WMF's reasoning here. It appears the decision here was to remove the page temporarily in order to comply with the legal process and ensure Wikipedia continued to have a chance of winning a case they see as winnable, rather than losing on a technicality.
The entire lawsuit is high tier baloney from bad faith actors hell bent on destroying any kind of accountabitlity for their actions. And the Delhi High Court is playing along because most of these...
The entire lawsuit is high tier baloney from bad faith actors hell bent on destroying any kind of accountabitlity for their actions. And the Delhi High Court is playing along because most of these courts have judges installed by the ones peddling the misinformation that these so called news outlets are sharing.
Here's a snapshot of the article they're suppressing.
And a related article
Think it's time to apply the Striesand Effect to this article.
What a bunch of clowns.
Just a friendly and touchy reminder that these sort of laws need to be implemented with the utmost care if they are to be implemented at all. Else here is a real world example of them being utilized by corporations and government officials to stifle information and force identification of anonymous dissidents.
The funny thing about Wikipedia the organization, is that even if they collapsed because of bad legislation like this, Wikipedia the data, because of its copy left license, would still be around, if more difficult to access until someone gets it hosted again.
Destruction would only be a temporary setback.
I fully believe wikipedia is only even complying (for now) for the sake of the people of India's access to the information in wikipedia, as it is, in the long term. In terms of impact, it's not a super effective court order compared to all of wikipedia being blocked in India.
But if India really is going down this path, it might be only a matter of time.
Really bummed, not to say worried, by Indias backsliding on democracy, in general.
Yes, but.
It absolutely jams an organisation (I.e. the people) from sourcing and distributing new data.
Oh, it would still be an absolute mess, but it's reassuring that copy left text information is incredibly difficult to suppress long term.
To give some more context: Jimbo Wales made a comment explaining some of the WMF's reasoning here. It appears the decision here was to remove the page temporarily in order to comply with the legal process and ensure Wikipedia continued to have a chance of winning a case they see as winnable, rather than losing on a technicality.
The entire lawsuit is high tier baloney from bad faith actors hell bent on destroying any kind of accountabitlity for their actions. And the Delhi High Court is playing along because most of these courts have judges installed by the ones peddling the misinformation that these so called news outlets are sharing.