"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 before the Authority.
Given the intentional failure on part of the platform to comply with the directions of PTA, the services of Wikipedia have been degraded for 48 hours with the direction to block / remove the reported contents. In case of non-compliance by Wikipedia the platform will be blocked within Pakistan.
The restoration of the services of Wikipedia will be reconsidered subject to blocking / removal of the reported unlawful contents. PTA is committed to ensuring a safe online experience for all Pakistani citizens according to local laws."
Because the law of a country (a very populated country) prohibits it.
In the same sense they supposedly would remove whatever violates hate speech laws or copyright laws in some other countries that the ones they operate in.
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.
Citizens would read blashpemous material, commit blashpemy and then will be lynched by the crowd
Wish it was a joke but sadly lynching due to alleged blashpemy is a huge issue in pakistan. Recently a Sri Lankan citizen was burned alive with a few hundred witnesses who just watched.
Edit: To be clear, I don't support the views expressed in 4chan. I don't participate, but I read because I find it interesting. I often think I should have been an anthropologist.
For most employees their company is not their own. They don't own any of it. Employees, in my opinion, have no other obligation to their employers beyond what is outlined in their contract and any employee who thinks otherwise has been bamboozled. Never settle for a "sense of ownership." If a company wants me to have a "sense of ownership" they should let me actually own part of the company.
Its not nationalism, but fairness.
If nationally you can't just work people all week, then an american company with unlimited VC money, selling its user data to everybody and working its workers to death will absolutely crush any local or neighboring competitor.
There must be limits, because as we have seen, globalism as its currently is basically american everything.
This has been a major topic in political science at least since neoliberalism became the bi-partisan consensus world view of both viable US political parties in the mid to late '80s. Stateless corporations, neocolonialism, intergovernmental regulatory regimes, et c., et c. By the '00s, at the latest, it was probably at the top of a very short list of topics that were receiving a ton of attention in the field.
The Tobin Tax and other policy ideas in response to the whole thing, concerns about interconnectedness leading to economic fragility and new kinds of global economic risk (as in e.g. the '97 "Asian Contagion", a domino-effect economic collapse that was only stopped by massive foreign [largely US] and IGO [largely IMF] intervention), the implications for state sovereignty, all that stuff's been covered and considered extensively for quite a while.
I'd describe Twitter as closer to a news site in the modern era. There are a lot of journalists and other important public figures sharing information there, and that's especially true for important live news events like earthquakes. (Twitter is the first place I check if I feel the house shake, for example.)
Encyclopedias are not warped to fit a minority groups opinion like Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is a website, not a trusted source. Not sure when Wikipedia became something more than a crowdsourced opinion site.
Some countries used to block specific articles, but that's not possible anymore thanks to HTTPS. Local editors in such places are at risk of prosecution though.
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.
while it may be tempting to condense the concern to the most virulent objections of an extreme, it bears remembrance that Pakistan is the only country to have been created in the name of Islam. the Holy Quran and Sunnah are effectively the books by which this nation is governed, and as such any charge of blasphemy is taken with a seriousness bordering on the academic.
this blasphemy charge could stem from any of the big 8, but the specific charges would be laid out in an almost arduous detail to the The Federal Shariat Court to make the case. only the supreme court of Pakistan can overrule the FSC.
the PTA (telecom authority) is committed to ensuring a safe online experience for all Pakistani citizens according to local laws, similar to content laws in the US and UK.
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.
>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's a very idealized and personal definition of God. I suspect that the God that most religious people believe in is closer to how North Koreans think about Kim Il Sung.
If G-d is eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent. How can he logically be different from what I described? He has seen everything imaginable and unimaginable countless times, will see everthing, knows everything to happen in advance, in sub-atomic details. Also knows your whole life which made your character this way so you behave exactly like you do, also all the neurotransmitter fluctuations taking place in you and what causes them inevitably, understands you better than yourself or any psychologist ever could.
Imagine a terribly disabled person, crippled physically and mentally, unable to carry a kilogram for a second or multiply 2x3, traumatised to the point of insanity, striuggling from dementia. Also imagine you are a world-famous olympic athlette with four doctorate degrees in diverse areas. What if the cripple would say an insult about you, would you feel anything but compassion? This is a rough approximation of the difference between any person and the G-d.
This is common in Judaism. I am not Jewish, so someone please correct me: I understand taking the name in vain or destroying the word once written are a no-go -- so if you never write it then there is not a big issue here.
I just enjoy writing it this way in accordance with what some bibilical traditions suggest. Sort of OCD/perfectionism. I could come up with many explanations if I had time&mood.
I don't think they are afraid of offending their god. I think they fear their human worshippers devolving into worshipping the person rather than following their religion. In other words they want to avoid the historical person superseding their god.
That's very different from the god described in the bible or the quran.
There was this one time where god got so mad, he flooded the whole earth, killing everyone. He was upset because people weren't worshipping him enough. So basically like Stalin, but worse.
How do you feel about banning hate speech? Blasphemy can be viewed by a believer of any faith as hate speech against God. Likewise, hate speech can be viewed as blasphemy against the values of liberalism.
"Blasphemy" as an excuse is no better or worse than its American cousins such as "election interference" and "sowing discord/disunity" as an excuse for quashing rights of expression.
Government mandated belief in a deity, and censoring contradictory content has nothing to do with belief or a god, but is designed to preserve a power structure.
What if
What if an AI
writes a blasphemy?
and the faithful already
are asking for its beheading?
I also thought of something else
to write, but I'd rather not
for I also have a head
one can chop.
Readit News
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 before the Authority.
Given the intentional failure on part of the platform to comply with the directions of PTA, the services of Wikipedia have been degraded for 48 hours with the direction to block / remove the reported contents. In case of non-compliance by Wikipedia the platform will be blocked within Pakistan.
The restoration of the services of Wikipedia will be reconsidered subject to blocking / removal of the reported unlawful contents. PTA is committed to ensuring a safe online experience for all Pakistani citizens according to local laws."
Wikipedia is more valuable with accurate content, even if some countries make it harder to access.
In the same sense they supposedly would remove whatever violates hate speech laws or copyright laws in some other countries that the ones they operate in.
How would Pakistani citizens be unsafe if that content remains? will there be total chaos? riots? more suicide bombings?
Wish it was a joke but sadly lynching due to alleged blashpemy is a huge issue in pakistan. Recently a Sri Lankan citizen was burned alive with a few hundred witnesses who just watched.
E.g. multinational corporations vs national tax laws
E.g. global internet services vs national privacy laws
E.g. global internet services vs national decency laws (the posted issue)
I'm starting to realise this mismatch is where a lot of friction is and will continue to be.
If countries would stop censoring free speech, we wouldn't have the problem at all.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_vs._McWorld
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=globalhomo
Edit: To be clear, I don't support the views expressed in 4chan. I don't participate, but I read because I find it interesting. I often think I should have been an anthropologist.
individual humans vs the collective groups which we come together to form;
like employees vs their own company
humans vs corporations but corporations are made (in part) from humans.
heck, it's like we're having some kind of an autoimmune reaction: the cells in a single individual human fighting against the individual human.
...but hey, for most of my life people chose to say I'm crazy and ignore what I say.
For most employees their company is not their own. They don't own any of it. Employees, in my opinion, have no other obligation to their employers beyond what is outlined in their contract and any employee who thinks otherwise has been bamboozled. Never settle for a "sense of ownership." If a company wants me to have a "sense of ownership" they should let me actually own part of the company.
There must be limits, because as we have seen, globalism as its currently is basically american everything.
There are limits. There is no unlimited VC money, and America's a crazy place to give an example of as having no workers' rights.
The Tobin Tax and other policy ideas in response to the whole thing, concerns about interconnectedness leading to economic fragility and new kinds of global economic risk (as in e.g. the '97 "Asian Contagion", a domino-effect economic collapse that was only stopped by massive foreign [largely US] and IGO [largely IMF] intervention), the implications for state sovereignty, all that stuff's been covered and considered extensively for quite a while.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
It does look like Wikipedia is ahead of Twitter in the free speech absolutist game if it prefers being blocked to compliance.
Wikipedia is also a "grup chat". Just look at the history of any page. (Hint: discussion).
Encyclopedias are not warped to fit a minority groups opinion like Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is a website, not a trusted source. Not sure when Wikipedia became something more than a crowdsourced opinion site.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia
Some countries used to block specific articles, but that's not possible anymore thanks to HTTPS. Local editors in such places are at risk of prosecution though.
> Wikipedia was approached for blocking / removal of the said contents
> platform neither complied by removing the blasphemous content nor appeared before the Authority.
Anyone know what sacrilegious/blasphemous content they are referring to?
Includes a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Best_Friends (South Park episode) which contains an image of Muhammad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia#Pakist...
this blasphemy charge could stem from any of the big 8, but the specific charges would be laid out in an almost arduous detail to the The Federal Shariat Court to make the case. only the supreme court of Pakistan can overrule the FSC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_in_Pakistan
daily Pakistan reports this is due to 'sacrilege,' a far less dire charge:
https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/01-Feb-2023/pakistan-degrade...
the PTA (telecom authority) is committed to ensuring a safe online experience for all Pakistani citizens according to local laws, similar to content laws in the US and UK.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_issue_No._1178
That's a very idealized and personal definition of God. I suspect that the God that most religious people believe in is closer to how North Koreans think about Kim Il Sung.
Imagine a terribly disabled person, crippled physically and mentally, unable to carry a kilogram for a second or multiply 2x3, traumatised to the point of insanity, striuggling from dementia. Also imagine you are a world-famous olympic athlette with four doctorate degrees in diverse areas. What if the cripple would say an insult about you, would you feel anything but compassion? This is a rough approximation of the difference between any person and the G-d.
IMO a little bit ironic considering the post contents.
There was this one time where god got so mad, he flooded the whole earth, killing everyone. He was upset because people weren't worshipping him enough. So basically like Stalin, but worse.