Wikipedia Unblocked in Pakistan After Prime Minister's Intervention (techcrunch.com) 27
Pakistan has unblocked Wikipedia in the South Asian market, three days after the online encyclopedia was censored in the nation over noncompliance with removing what the local regulator deemed as "sacrilegious" content. From a report: Shehbaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, directed the unblocking order, calling the censorship on Wikipedia "not a suitable measure to restrict access to some objectionable contents / sacrilegious matter on it." "The unintended consequences of this blanket ban, therefore, outweigh its benefits," Sharif added.
I bet the real reason it's unblocked (Score:2)
Also, theocracy is no joke.
Re: (Score:3)
Give credit where it's due. Cynicism doesn't help, it will only get the extremists power.
Nice to see some good news (Score:2)
Yes, unintended consequences indeed.
I am sure this was planned from the beginning. (Score:2)
Birds of a feather (Score:4, Interesting)
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
Seventeen U.S. Republican state attorneys general wrote a letter to the chief executive of Alphabet's Google (GOOGL.O) urging the company to show "crisis pregnancy centers," which oppose the procedure, in search results for people looking for abortion services.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
And any search for "churches" must also detail synagogues and mosques. And any search for "2nd amendment" or "NRA" must also detail the anti-gun-violence laws of Australia, UK and the state of Massachusetts. Once again, this is the far-right whinging "nobody listens to me, it's not fair, you have to make them listen".
Google charges for changing search results, they're not about to work for free. The US government can't force them either, every mega-company would sue the government.
Re:Birds of a feather (Score:5, Funny)
> every mega-company would sue the government.
And this is why we need a theocracy. Wait, sorry, I've been reading propaganda again.
Re: (Score:2)
How repulsive. There is evil in the world and it is these people.
Re: (Score:2)
Google regularly promotes specific content in SERP space that serve its virtue signaling purposes. Try searching for black history month.
Bad faith (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can put "justice" and "blasphemie" in the same context, you have already lost.
Re: (Score:2)
While there was no justice at all involved (it was a the government telecommunication agency), it is interesting to notice that it is not independent in Pakistan. In USA the FCC, which is in charge of censorship when it exists (like censorship of internet pornography in 1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) is independent. France has also an independent communication regulation authority (Arcom), certainly more developed countries follow this rule as well. It is worth of debate whether this should be the
Re: (Score:2)
So at least the PM does not want a dark age? (Score:1)
Well, that is something. When the religious fuckups get limited in their power-fantasies by the head of state, that is actually pretty good.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope the day comes when this will occur in the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Money is the only power that talks in the United States. And there are very, very few entities that have the money to fight Christianity. Even fewer who have the money to fight them and don't see them as useful pawns in their own end-game.
Re: (Score:2)
limited in their power-fantasies by the head of state,
small nitpick: The PM is not head of state. That role is held by a dentist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
He is, however, the head of the government. In parliamentary systems, the two are usually not the same, with the head of the government being the one with the real power.
Pakistan needs to figure out who it wants to be. (Score:2)
What's this? (Score:2)
A sudden outbreak of common sense? From a politician, no less? I must be dreaming.
A fair proposal (Score:2)
I'd extend that to other situations, where a person or company affected by an article could be allowed to add a statement
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's a statement of fact and it is on-topic, so it would be a valid edit to make. Perhaps in the style:
The information contained in the this article is considered blasphemous [1] in the country of Pakistan therefore people reading from that country should consider if they wish to continue.
[1] Edict from government.
I didn't think this ban would last (Score:1)