Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy
pta.gov.pk
pta.gov.pk
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.
s/law/rulers/g
You don't need to replace them. They are equivalent.
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.
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.
If countries would stop censoring free speech, we wouldn't have the problem at all.
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.
But comparing employment to slavery is a taboo
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.
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.
It does look like Wikipedia is ahead of Twitter in the free speech absolutist game if it prefers being blocked to compliance.
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.
Twitter is an open platform that anyone can say anything on. It's a social media site, and people happen to post their personal stories/experiences. Nothing more. I believe we wouldn't have such issues with misinformation if people stopped giving so much weight to everything they read on Twitter/Reddit/Facebook/etc.
I don't know where you live, but here a news site is a site following political views or creating new stories which have nothing to do with reality.
"researched, and somewhat accurate" is below 1 pecent of the site content.
Wikipedia is also a "grup chat". Just look at the history of any page. (Hint: discussion).
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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia#Pakist...
Includes a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Best_Friends (South Park episode) which contains an image of Muhammad.
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.
No? Saudi Arabia exists
Pakistan is different since its defining trait was to be carved out as a homeland for the Muslims of South Asia, rather than anything inherent in the land itself - its citizenry was outlined long before its actual land borders.
Oh so that makes censorship ok? Bigotry is fine too, it’s all in the name of Islam, right?
Why didn’t you say so, that obviously activates the “free from all consequences” card. /s
This is not the catch-all excuse you think it is.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_issue_No._1178
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Comments_on_race
Edit: the psychology of creating an account to make that particular comment is fascinating to me.
Ah, yes, the "Latin" skin pigment. From black in the Caribbean, to nordic White/Ginger found in Spain and Chile/Argentina. Very accurate.
> At the very commencement of his accession, he found himself forced into exile from Pakistan in response to pressure from the Government of Pakistan.
Is that inaccurate?
Never mind: You are talking about Mirza. I'm talking about the Nobel Laureate. Two different people.
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.
With your example about being insulted by someone so wretched, I agree - I would feel compassion but that's an emotional response based on my current personality. You do sometimes see very successful people being riled up by minor criticisms from nobodies and you do think "Why on Earth do they care?". Some people are just petty minded and cruel, even when there is no need.
I'm not a believer, but I must say the idea of a God capable of petty cruelties does at least seem to match how the world actually is vs a God who is both omnipotent and all loving.
That's possible because they are just humans. They have basically monkey brains on steroids and didn't have eternity to mature their wisdom.
Any being, no matter how advanced, can happen to find necessary what we would consider evil or unfortunate. But getting insulted and angry is a primitive animal reflex meant to help animals protect their social status among similarly primitive creatures, obviously not an attribute of G-d.
> I would feel compassion but that's an emotional response based on my current personality.
Have you had a chance to observe how does your personality mature? The more you experience, know and understand, the harder it becomes to make you angry, insecure or disbalance you in any other emotional way, isn't it? Who the heck we are to think we can affect G-d?
>Judaism considers some names of God so holy that, once written, they should not be erased: YHWH, Adonai, El ("God"), Elohim ("God," a plural noun), Shaddai ("Almighty"), and Tzevaot ("[of] Hosts"); some also include Ehyeh ("I Will Be"). Early authorities considered other Hebrew names mere epithets or descriptions of God, and wrote that they and names in other languages may be written and erased freely. Some moderns advise special care even in these cases, and many Orthodox Jews have adopted the chumras of writing "G-d" instead of "God" in English
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.
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.
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.
in unrelated news, Deutsche Welle also banned
Sure, momentum builds. Sometimes. But the fallacy is proclaiming with 100% certainty both that the momentum will build, and the specific way it’s going to roll.
We don’t know the future. We can’t claim with certainty that something will happen as a result of another action. Claiming anything otherwise is falling right into the fallacy.
In the real world, there is rarely a single datapoint. In the case of religions demanding censorship, there is A LOT of data.
The fallacy is proclaiming that a specific chain of events will occur due to one action. Can it happen? Sure. Will it happen with 100% certainty? Of course not, so don't pretend like it will, regardless how many datapoints exist.
When you draw a trend line that goes down: Um sweety, that's a heckin fallacy.
> The fallacy is proclaiming that a specific chain of events will occur due to one action.
As I said myself and you rejected, the fallacy is asserting a trend from a single data point. I guess you just like hearing it in your own words more.
[1] - https://archive.ph/cKPf8
seriously what could go wrong in that country if the content is not blocked?
edit I meant why didn't the Pakistani government just edit Wikipedia like any other person. I realized my post could be taken as saying "why didn't Wikipedia just do what they want" which was not what I meant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_censorship_b...
As for Wikipedia I know it's not a business, but the above logic of countries controlling access of content applies here. It's not the first time or first country censoring Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia
I think we need to understand the main cause behind all this. One thing we need to understand more which is not the cause but symptom the right & left wing populism across world.
The UK would like to politely dissagree.
The FBI sending Twitter emails about TOS violations they noticed and being executed for being an atheist are "similar" only if you really torture the definition.
The West, in general, within its own territory, is better on just about every civil rights issue than places like Pakistan and China. That doesn't mean it's good: places like Pakistan and China set a pretty low bar.
" Another Bleedin Monty Python Website banner image image HomeTV Series Holy Grail Meaning of LifeLife of BrianSilly Links Life of Brian Script Scene 12: Brian Earns Jailor's Pet Title The sketch: eerie music
VOICE: Huo!
whip
VOICE: Hoo hoo hoo! Oh!
clank
whump
BRIAN: Eh.
clank
JAILER: Eh, heh heh ha. ptoo
BRIAN: Aah! Eh.
JAILER: Eh, heh heh. cough cough cough cough cough
BEN: You lucky bastard.
BRIAN: Who's that?
BEN: You lucky, lucky bastard.
BRIAN: What?
BEN: Proper little jailer's pet, aren't we?
BRIAN: What do you mean?
BEN: You must have slipped him a few shekels, eh?
BRIAN: Slipped him a few shekels? You saw him spit in my face!
BEN: Ohh! What wouldn't I give to be spat at in the face! I sometimes hang awake at night dreaming of being spat at in the face.
BRIAN: Well, it's not exactly friendly, is it? They had me in manacles!
BEN: Manacles! Ooh oooh oh oh. My idea of heaven is to be allowed to be put in manacles... just for a few hours. They must think the sun shines out o' your arse, sonny.
BRIAN: Oh, lay off me. I've had a hard time!
BEN: You've had a hard time?! I've been here five years! They only hung me the right way up yesterday! So, don't you come 'rou--
BRIAN: All right. All right.
BEN: They must think you're Lord God Almighty.
BRIAN: What will they do to me?
BEN: Oh, you'll probably get away with crucifixion.
BRIAN: Crucifixion?!
BEN: Yeah, first offence.
BRIAN: Get away with crucifixion?! It's--
BEN: Best thing the Romans ever did for us.
BRIAN: What?!
BEN: Oh, yeah. If we didn't have crucifixion, this country would be in a right bloody mess.
BRIAN: Guards!
BEN: Nail him up, I say!
BRIAN: Guards!
BEN: Nail some sense into him!
JAILER: cough cough What do you want?
BRIAN: I want you to move me to another cell.
JAILER: Ha! ptoo
BRIAN: Aah!
BEN: Oh, look at that! Bloody favoritism!
JAILER: Shut up, you!
BEN: Sorry!
JAILER: Huhh. cough cough
BEN: Now, take my case. They hung me up here five years ago. Every night, they take me down for twenty minutes, then they hang me up again, which I regard as very fair, in view of what I done, and, if nothing else, it's taught me to respect the Romans, and it's taught me... that you'll never get anywhere in this life, unless you're prepared to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay!
BRIAN: Oh, shut up!
clank
JAILER: Ehhh.
CENTURION: Pilate wants to see you!
BRIAN: Me?
CENTURION: Come on!
BRIAN: Pilate? What does he want to see me for?
CENTURION: I think he wants to know which way up you want to be crucified.
BEN: Oh, ha ha ha haa! Ha haa! Nice one, Centurion. Like it. Like it.
CENTURION: Shut up!
BEN: Right. Right. Terrific race, the Romans. Terrific."
The threat of that is very real.
Twitter did exactly that in some cases, with no apparent repercussions.
In the most recent transparency report (https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/countries/us.htm...) Twitter declined ~30% of data requests from US government agencies.
They are also suing the government over NSLs; https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2014/taking-the-fi...
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 think we can all agree that artistic depictions of Mohammad, even if they fall squarely under free speech, are something that are of poor taste because they trigger the sensibilities of a large chunk of people that abide to certain customs and norms. The hope here is that these folks come around to their viewpoints and say "sigh, I don't like what you're doing, but I'm just going to turn away". The debate is front and center, let's see how it evolves.
You'd be wrong. Many of us think that judging content by whether it offends someone is a terrible idea. Viewers should self-censor if they find something objectionable rather than subject everyone else to their personal opinions.
We judge the content of what others find offensive all the time, and we even agree that it is subjective, different people of different ages, backgrounds, experiences have different sensibilities, and as social beings we understand and respect this. The internet of course throws a wrench in all of this because it's hard to enforce moderation on a local basis as we do in the real world. But that does not mean that the way we have been living forever goes out the window.
I'm not saying we should do away with free speech, rather just that we have to work through things carefully and slowly. My hope is that after a little bit of debate, a liberal attitude prevails in Pakistan. But to respond with how folks are responding in this thread, of just putting gasoline on the fire, that's not really how progress is made, it is how we further elevate and agitate an already volatile happening -- we should probably not do that.
To reach Wikipedia, you have to make a deliberate action, it's not like Wikipedia has kids in the street screaming to sell their product.
It's not a tv channel broadcasted in some restaurant.
It's not a radio you might ear in a bus.
That's where the debate should lie, not around religious views because everyone here could find problematic content on Wikipedia.
Nope. But nice try.
> 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.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes" is not a new observation. This has been abused since antiquity to oppress.
Great attitude to have for the Politburo I'm sure. Cardinal Richelieu. Jihadis of all sorts. The Spanish Inquisition (least you get offended I am picking on Jihadis) - No thanks.
The US does not have absolute free speech. No nation does and it is wrong to continue to claim that. What the US has is far fewer restrictions on speech relative to the rest of the world.
I'd rather have absolute free speech than self-interested dotards limiting my speech.
"Poor taste" is subjective. Drawing Mohammad should be legal, even if people don't have to like it. Terrorism in response is despicable no matter what speech occurred beforehand.
E2A: https://www.theonion.com/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-ima... (NSFW)
I disagree, because the slippery slope is VERY slippery here. Eating meat triggers the sensibility of some vegans, so does hunting, something isn't "in poor taste" just because it triggers.
No.
Nope. Fuck their customs and norms. Out here in the non-psychotic world, we also have "customs and norms". Those include not cutting facts out of our accounts of history, and not telling other people what they can say in general.
By the way, those exact same "customs and norms" also say that, although they can keep me from drawing some guy because it's offensive to them, I can't criticize a book that's full of literal, direct exhortations to kill a shit-ton of people, including me personally-- exhortations that have been and still are being acted upon throughout the book's history-- because questioning that book is also offensive to them. In addition to glorifying violence, that book also goes on for page after page denigrating other religions, by the way.
When you're prepared to systematically shun (at least) all Abrahamic scriptures and everybody who spreads them, along with all the other "false and illegitimate claims", and along with anything else that conflicts with anybody's "customs and norms", then you'll be in a self-consistent position. You'll still be wrong, but you'll at least be consistent. Ready to go there?
By the way, trying frame your position as something that every reasonable person obviously must already accept is a really pitiful rhetorical tactic.
[Edit] And how should this be addressed in the US? Simple. Only censor things that are explicitly and clearly illegal under federal law and the laws of the state the company is headquartered in. If another state has an issue with that, then they must create their own competing platform.
Machine learning, what people today are mistakenly calling "AI" must tag anything that is not explicitly illegal with unobtrusive labels such as "hate speech" or "propaganda" or "misinformation" and so on.... Each label must link to the Machine Learning "Showing Its Work" to describe in detail exactly how it reached that conclusion and the members of the platform must have a way to contest and override the labels. The posts must show how many people disagree with said labels. No hidden algorithms, no hidden data-sets. The Machine Learning must show its work and show its references.
Members must have the ability to hide any content that has labels they do not wish to see just like the capabilities in StackExchange.
- 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.
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.
I do agree that it’s partially due to programming. If you look at movies for example you’ll see this black and white thinking. There’s a good guy and a bad guy and it’s all very simple.
Take a look at feminism for example. It started as "hey women should have equal rights", which is good. But now we see far too many people treating men as a monolith and demonizing them. So now we have a narrative that women = good, and men = bad. I see this all the time on social media from the left and it has to stop. Male suicide rates are far too high right now, and I partly blame this narrative and the lack of nuance that caused it.
In-fact I follow mostly left-wing media and I consider myself a true leftist because I think everyone should be treated equally, and power dynamics aren't as simple as man = has all power, women = has no power. But that's exactly the narrative that the left is pushing. I guarantee that if you were to post online even the simplest thing like "women have some power over men" you'll get dogpiled by people calling you a rapist because they can't handle nuance.
I also call bullshit on your explanation for male suicide. Male loneliness plays a major role, and it's partly due to the fact that we collectively put women on a pedestal in our society. Which again goes back to lack of nuance. Something like 30% of men haven't had sex in the past year, and women generally find 80% of men unattractive on dating sites. There is real data backing up my position.
For the first time in history, women actually have the societal, as well as legal right to not find a man. They are finally able to be choosy and say no when they don't want to do anything. They are no longer coerced by laws or societal norms to settle for a man, and can freely chose to only find a partner if that partner is attractive to them, physically or emotionally or whatever their preference is.
Of course, men who were brought up to think that women owe them anything hate this, because it means they have to be more than just a living paycheck to get a partner. It means millions of men who in older times would have found a wife who settled for them now have to compete with other men who may understand and treat women as individuals instead of sex objects to be claimed.
There is plenty of room to talk about how culture around men prioritizes sex and finding a partner, and discourages men from being themselves. There is plenty of room to talk about how plenty of women hate the current situation where logging into a dating app means 100 new messages, 5 unsolicited dick picks, and being called a slut when they rebuff someone's advances, as if that makes any sense.
None of this is putting women on a pedestal. A significant portion of the right wing here in the states is actively campaigning on the idea of abolishing all non-standard cultures, and demonizing independent women and single mothers especially as solely responsible for society's ills.
If you are hurt by a traditionally oppressed population finally getting the ability to direct their own life, you should consider what that says about your former position in the world.
Like when the US actually starts trying to censor ideas rather than their hateful expressions I’ll start to be worried. Because lord knows it is your god given right to be an absolute piece of shit writing think pieces about all your bigoted opinions but content like /r/c__ntown is just hate with no substance at all.
Blasphemy carries the death penalty in Pakistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_in_Pakistan
I think it is. Pakastan can create whatever laws fit its culture. I would never dare to imagine imposing my values or beliefs on them. They should create their own Wiki alternative and make it popular within their nation.
[Edit] Or if their people see fit change their laws, overthrow their government or whatever they deem appropriate for their culture. But that is entirely on them. Now if they want to ask how to bypass censorship, I would be happy to provide a myriad of methods just as I did for the Iranians that posted here in the recent past.
Believe it or not, but some places don't have the resources to hold people in jail for decades.
If there was a murderer and the place had no way to actually keep the murderer away from the general population, what would you recommend? Just ask the murderer to not murder again?
Even the bankrupt Taliban manages to keep 14k people in their prisons. https://www.voanews.com/a/taliban-refill-afghan-jails/693518...
Burundi's the last on the list of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... and manages prisons, as well.
They're not opting for executions for the cost savings.
Yes, but if they actually jailed all criminals the number would be far higher.
Afghanistan's murder rate is approx 2800 people per year (6.7/100k, population 40 million). Assuming only a 10 year sentence for murder they should have twice as many people in prison -- assuming no other crimes whatsoever, which of course isn't the case.
"They're not opting for executions for the cost savings."
Don't be so sure. I agree with the above commenter - maintaining jails can be prohibitively expensive for undeveloped countries.
We have no clue how many people they are holding in jail and how many are executed. Do you think they could actually hold thousands of additional prisoners who are amongst the most violent?
We also don't know how many of the guards agree with the terrorists. It probably wouldn't be a good thing to have a prison full of terrorists where the guards agree. They likely would "accidentally" let some of them escape.
Which is worse: 100 innocent people being killed by the death penalty or 100 innocent people getting killed by murderers? This is the calculation that many underdeveloped countries have to look at.
Allowing a murderer to live in a country that doesn't have the means to support them will lead to additional suffering of the prisoner (due to less resources), additional suffering of those not in prison (due to additional taxes), and an additional risk to additional murders by the murderer (if they kill other prisoners, guards or escape).
It is easy for people in the first world to say we don't have the need to have the death penalty, but to tell the poorest they are too stupid to know better is kind of arrogant.
I would especially recommend talking to people in the most remote areas of the underdeveloped countries. They literally are unable to keep people in prison.
Over the past few decades, most areas have been solving these issues, but there are still a few areas where there is no alternative.
As I get older, I realize that while this may be idealized values - this works very poorly in the "real world". At some point, you realize that your arbitrary morals are simply better - better for everyone. Death penalty for blasphemy would be one of them - the world would simply be a better place if this did not exist.
For reference, I was using one of "those" sites during the 2016 election, and an actual ad next to my chosen video was one of Donald Trump doing Hillary from behind with great gusto.
It's not a crime. It was also hilarious.
"Congress shall make no law"...
Your own country and its cleanliness is totally irrelevant to Pakistan censoring Wikipedia.