Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court

Since then, we've seen a slow and steady march in the direction we all dreaded. Country after country has decided that they have the right to block content on the "free and open Internet", and business after business (even those who joined the SOPA protests) has complied. Someone looking ahead from 2012 would barely recognize the internet today as being the same thing, the way we just roll over to the threats that used to cause global outrage and defiance.

Were we naive even at the time? Have governments become more authoritarian? Or has our energy for resistance just been slowly whittled away?

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PI...

1. The Streisand effect. No-one on HN gave a monkeys about this dodgy news agency till today. Now half of us have read the archive about how they promote propaganda & fake news. Your reputation takes a hit

2. There is no absolute definition of “freedom”. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for humanity in general and I think should be defended. But as more and more of humanity come to live more and more online, then the legal and cultural norms will shift and shuffle - courts for two hundred years have assumed they can order anyone in their jurisdiction around and often not in their jurisdiction- and that’s kind of the point of courts. So what is freedom? It’s what we the demos and the courts agree …

3. An example is in the order (I mean on the Streisand effect - when the %#}#% hell would I ever read a court order from India ?!) - it says “herein to take down/delete” - this bespeaks a failure to understand the world on the level of “who are the Beatles”. Take down - fine this is part of how we agree norms and limits of courts. Delete. Are you kidding me. Does that imply from everywhere else? Wow.

Right now only a few people in India know about the ongoing dispute between ANI and Wikipedia. A country-level block is going to bring everyone's attention to the issue which I don't think is something ANI and the incumbent party (the BJP) would want to happen.

India routinely blocks many websites, including many porn sites, but blocking something as big, popular and useful as Wikipedia is not going to go unnoticed by the Indian media.

"In July 2024, ANI filed a lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundation in the Delhi High Court — claiming to have been defamed in its article on Wikipedia — and sought ₹2 crore (US$240,000) in damages.[16][17][18] On 5 September, the Court threatened to hold Wikimedia guilty of contempt for failing to disclose information about the editors who had made changes to the article and warned that Wikipedia might be blocked in India upon further non-compliance. The judge on the case stated "If you don't like India, please don't work in India... We will ask government to block your site".[19][20] In response, Wikimedia emphasized that the information in the article was supported by multiple reliable secondary sources.[21] Justice Manmohan said "I think nothing can be worse for a news agency than to be called a puppet of an intelligence agency, stooge of the government. If that is true, the credibility goes."[22]"

I suppose that this might not be the most objective article on Wikipedia. I don't have context for these statements. The way that Wikipedia quotes the judge makes it sound like he's threatening to order the Indian government to block Wikipedia because Wikipedia says that ANI is government propaganda. Is that really what's going on? If so it seems extremely ironic, to the point of tacitly admitting ANI's links to the Indian government. I know hacker news has many Indian readers; can they provide some context or an alternative perspective?

As a discerning reader, you learn to avoid mainstream media that quotes ANI (don't even consider watching a TV channel). You seek out alternate information sources. As the entity aligns closer with the ruling party and the mega-corporations like Adani that are aligned with it, you basically witness an octopus take over all information communication in India.

Then you get harsher and harsher laws regulating social media. You get no new laws protecting your speech. You witness a general fatalism set in on the few Indian comment sections that still think this stuff is wrong. But one day you see it on HN and realise everyone is basically powerless here.

Foolish maybe, but I genuinely hoped the open and open-sourced side of the internet would transcend borders. There must exist an information ecosystem that is above government. But Linux bans Russian devs, wikipedia is blocked worldwide because they wouldn't reveal an editor's biodata to India, social media platforms regulating information appoint information officers to enforce dictatorial government orders.

Where is the technology that can challenge this? At what point can the principle of "code is law" support free human expression instead of serving the whims of the latest oppressive regime?

I would implore any devs making open-source censorship-proof tools to consider the Indian context as ground zero.

As a matter of sovereignty, a state can exercise judicial jurisdiction over its territory, over its nationals, over national security concerns and over the most grave crimes.

A state’s jurisdiction can apply even to foreign people/companies who have no presence in said state at all. What the state’s courts can’t do is enforce their decisions abroad.

I know nothing about Indian law, but I know it has the right to set its own judicial jurisdiction. Accordingly, it can surely grant courts the power to order worldwide content bans. The real questions at stake in this case are:

1) does Wikipedia have any presence in India, so that Indian courts can compel it to follow their orders?

2) which countries where Wikipedia operates are able to receive requests from Indian courts and take enforcement action based on them?

It might not be fair, or right, but that’s the way it is. Thankfully, the obstacles to enforcing absurd orders abroad are usually high enough that they discourage said orders, or render them ineffective.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

To describe briefly: There is a politician ("S") with articles in various languages of Wikipedia. One day, a group of people claiming to be the daughter of S ("T") tried to insert content that can be described as "trivial" and not relating to the work of S itself. Wikipedia editors, including myself, tried to argue to T that the content T inserted in an article about S isn't something that should be inserted, and despite the article of S including the criticism relating to lawsuit against S and his policy, the content was supported by books written by scholars. T simply argued that the content written in article of S is false, and threatened to bring lawsuit against editors involving in the process of keeping article of S up to standard. So far, T managed to file a police report against some editors, but no lawsuits were filed as far as I know. T also maintained presence in another forum, and I also argue that Wikipedia do not allow T to insert content of S in a manner T intended to. Instead, T decided to quote my reply out of context to defame me, causing me to send cease and desist notice. This prompted T to stalk my lawyer and publish the information, causing the lawyer and myself to discuss further action that should be taken in relation to this issue.

I have reported this incident to WMF 5 years ago, as the issue has been as long as that point. The issue on T and S has become so persistent such that I have proposed that our language of WMF project will ban any content relating to their family, as we do not want our volunteers to expose to legal liability for having to deal with frivolous lawsuit. This threatened lawsuit is one of the reasons I largely retired from writing content in Wikipedia, as I do not want accomplices of T and S to discover that I am active and that they will continue to harass me, though I'll still handle this behind the scenes if needed.

I know there are some projects toward that already, but my fear is they won't reach maturity before governments blocking any content they don't want their population accessing is the norm.

Some things should be illegal, sure, but if governments start attacking free speech and limiting what materials a population should have access to when they have no reason to do so, then an alternate network where crime is rampant that they can't police is a necessary price to pay to get around unjust authoritarianism.

Getting Wikipedia banned in India, would hurt the people of India, who don’t have a say in the matter.

Sure, _some_ people will still figure out a way to access it. But, they are not even the people who most need Wikipedia.

I think Wikipedia’s trying to toe the line, preventing a country-wide ban, which would affect nearly a billion people, while still drawing attention to the situation is a pretty good strategy.

At the time of the suit's filing, the Wikipedia article about ANI said the news agency had "been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on multiple occasions". The filing accused Wikipedia of publishing "false and defamatory content with the malicious intent of tarnishing the news agency's reputation, and aimed to discredit its goodwill".

The filing argued that Wikipedia "is a platform used as public utility and as such cannot behave as a private sector". It also complained that Wikipedia had "closed" the article about ANI for editing except by Wikipedia's "own editors", citing this as evidence of defamation with malicious intent and evidence that WMF was using its "officials" to "actively participate" in controlling content. ANI asked for ₹2 crore (approximately US$240,000) in damages and an injunction against Wikipedia "making, publishing, or circulating allegedly false, misleading, and defamatory content against ANI".

The case was filed in July 2024 before Justice Navin Chawla in the Delhi High Court as ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v Wikimedia Foundation Inc & Ors. 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. Chawla issued a summons to WMF, called the lawsuit "a pure case of defamation" and set a hearing date of 20 August. On 20 August 2024, Chawla ordered WMF to disclose identifying details of three editors (also defendants in the lawsuit) who had worked on the Wikipedia article about ANI to allow ANI to pursue legal action against them as individuals. Chawla ordered WMF to provide the information within two weeks.

On 5 September, ANI asked the court to find WMF in contempt when the identifying details were not released within the time frame. Chawla issued a contempt of court order and threatened to order the government of India to block Wikipedia in the country, saying "We will not take it any more. If you don't like India, please don't work in India...We will close your business transactions here." In response, Wikimedia emphasized that the information in the article was supported by multiple reliable secondary sources. Chawla ordered that an "authorised representative" of WMF appear in person at the next hearing, which was scheduled for 25 October 2024.

On 14 October, Delhi High Court justices Manmohan and Tushar Rao Gedela objected to the creation of an English Wikipedia article about the defamation case, saying the article "disclos[ed] something about a sub-judice matter" and "will have to be taken down", and scheduled review for 16 October. On 16 October, the court stated that "Accordingly, in the interim, this Court directs that the pages on Wikipedia pertaining to the single judge as well as discussion of the observations of division bench be taken down or deleted within 36 hours".

Here is an article from India with some of the story

We can't let the internet be governed by the lowest common denominator of legal decisions.

"ANI has been accused of acting as a propaganda tool for the current central government, distributing content from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on several occasions."[1]

Hindi Wikipedia also addresses the lawsuit between ANI and Wikipedia in the same article as this alleged "defamatory information" instead of having a translated version of the English Wikipedia ANI v Wikimedia case.[2][3]

Bengali Wikipedia (language spoken by 9% of Indians) is a stub article that still manages to make similar remarks to Hindi Wikipedia.[4]

Telugu Wikipedia (language spoken by 8% of Indians) has favorable coverage of ANI but still addresses the lawsuit between ANI and Wikipedia.[5]

Malayalam Wikipedia (language spoken by 3% of Indians) just has a stub article that says nothing much.[6]

edit: Answer appears to be "On 14 October, Delhi High Court justices Manmohan and Tushar Rao Gedela objected to the creation of an English Wikipedia article about the defamation case, saying the article "disclos[ed] something about a sub-judice matter" and "will have to be taken down", and scheduled review for 16 October. On 16 October, the court stated that "Accordingly, in the interim, this Court directs that the pages on Wikipedia pertaining to the single judge as well as discussion of the observations of division bench be taken down or deleted within 36 hours".".[7][8]

[1] https://hi-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%A4%8F%E0%...

[2] https://hi-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%A4%8F%E0%...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._W...

[4] https://bn-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%A6%8F%E0%...

[5] https://te-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%B0%8F%E0%...

[6] https://ml-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%E0%B4%8F%E0%...

[7] Deleted article: https://archive.md/XIxZv#selection-2289.0-2351.1

[8] Deleted article: https://archive.md/CcA6Q

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.

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.

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

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

I wonder how long such a description of a US news outlet like CNN, Fox, NYT or WashPo would last on English Wikipedia.

Also Wikipedia does not have a good track record of its editors free from misleading articles for defamation and propaganda. I won't trust at all the article in Wikipedia about the war between Wikipedia and ANI. The article (archive) already seems to present the court in a bad flavour.