It's a trial in which Wikipedia is one of the participants. Do people who think that this is the real censorship support allowing any participant in a trial put up a webpage, that the "public" is allowed to edit, whose only purpose is to comment on the trial? Do you support this in all cases? If the "public" chooses to use that webpage to attack witnesses, jurors, and judges, can it be taken down then? Must Wikipedia, as a participant in the trial, be allowed to support and moderate a page like this?

It's also not a jurisdiction question. Wikipedia is free not to block the page anywhere if it is willing to be punished within India's jurisdiction for failing to do it.

This thread is so bizarre. I think 80% of middle-class people are against censorship of anything they support, and for censorship of anything they don't. The other 20% take moral positions instead of narcissistic ones, but are usually intimidated into silence. These people like Wikipedia, so censoring Wikipedia in any possible circumstance, including maintaining a place to comment on an ongoing trial in which they are a participant is wrong. Censoring Elon, censoring Palestine? It's actually so right that you seem Russian for even asking about it.

It feels absurd that the Talk page is also blocked in this instance!

Anyway, it is not really a reliable source of info

Slowly, more citizen rights are being eroded by so-called democratic countries by weaponising legislation to get what the few elite in government want.

Another example was US sanctions against Russia, which led to the Linux kernel maintainers removing Russians. Not all Russians support or endorse the war criminal Putin. Are we going to see Western-allied countries like Apartheid Israel also sanctioned? Probably not. Legislation should not be used as a weapon to promote state propaganda.

Are we really going to block freely-available content on the internet? It seems like decentralisation is key to citizen liberty divorced from any one country's legislation.

Why not just instead, block access to all Wikipedia in India, get some popcorn and see massive protests overturn the situation (and if not done quickly enough, probably result in overthrow of the government or maybe of state itself, because popular protests tend to escalate beyond their original goals as commonly seen in Latin America).

I'm actually really disappointed in Wikimedia. Why didn't they fight this at all? Or, y'know, just ignore it?

When X came out with allegations about interfere from govt agencies HN crowd was mocking them nothing burger etc

Now they are concerned about freedom of speech

If can't defend freedom of speech regardless of your political opinion then you don't deserve freedom of speech

I don't really oppose gdpr but one of the reasons I vehemently opposed implementing GDPR at my former job is that we were not operating in the EU. Well, we had customers there, but we were an American company operating with American severs. GDPR sets another precident that other countries can make laws about what people from other jurisdictions can do..

Our lawyers said "Do it anyway, just in case".

The side effect of these very many different local regulatory bodies is you start trying to comply with multiple laws, some that can conflict each other - and this costs not just time and money, but the rigidity to stand up and say "No, our elected leaders have decided what the laws of the land are, and we follow them".

And the thing is, many countries do not have good faith laws. The majority of the people in the world live under what Americans and the EU, and the West would call lacking fundamental human rights. Some of these laws are plain BAD (hell, the US and AU even have our own bad internet laws) and some are EVIL.

Google routinely complying with the Chinese government is a great example of them wanting to take the cash first and ask questions later (or not at all). I don't want to work for that company.

I don't really think being a good 'worldwide' citizen can exist when there are conflicting views held by governments about what is right. The fact is some governments are objectively etter than others

I don't really think we aught to be involving ourselves at all with Russian officals, apparatjiks or other government bodies - but we find ourselves in this situation again, like GDPR, Russian officals have set certain rules about how data for russian citizens needs be held.

Of course Russia has no grounds to sue me in America and if it did, do you think a judge would enforce our compliance with laws that hold no water in our countries? Of course not.

Russia wants russians data - on russian servers in russia. The fact is they're probably mostly interested in being able to physically seize - without any due process - russian citizens data from servers which all happen to be in russia. It's a smart law if you're interested in putting people in gulags.

I'd rather lose all russian customers, and also all of the customers in north korea, or whatever else despotic governments that exist that think they can exert pressure on independent companies who don't operate under their jurisdictions and not have to worry about what bullshit they'll come up with next.

None of this to imply that the US and EU, Australia, Switzerland, etcdon't have a bunch of questionable laws and procedures that might not be quite fair or free either, but the world ain't perfect

What happens next is country X decides you must do one thing, and country Y decides you do another, and you come to TECHNICAL problems and BUSINESS problems and ETHICAL problems trying to comply with both.

If you're not in the EU, do not even bother with GDPR.

Rant over

[dead]

[dead]