Wikipedia Blocked in Pakistan Over 'Sacrilegious' Content (bloomberg.com)
- Reference: 0170261249
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/23/02/03/1830209/wikipedia-blocked-in-pakistan-over-sacrilegious-content
- Source link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-03/wikipedia-is-blocked-in-pakistan-over-sacrilegious-content
> The action was taken because some of the content is still available on Wikipedia after the expiry of [2]a 48-hour deadline , Malahat Obaid, spokesperson for Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, said by phone.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-03/wikipedia-is-blocked-in-pakistan-over-sacrilegious-content
[2] https://news.slashdot.org/story/23/02/01/1638216/pakistan-degrades-wikipedia-warns-of-complete-block-over-sacrilegious-content
Good (Score:3)
If a theocracy wants to block a valuable service, that's one more nail in their eventual coffin. Wikipedia (and other online tools) shouldn't help them restrict what their citizens can see.
Re: (Score:2)
This is even odder than that. Allah is considered so *other* that no one can say anything about her. Yet, Muslims go about claiming things are an insult to Allah. Since no one can ask her, how would they know?
The escape clause (didn't you just know there had to be one) is that Allah communicates through his angels....to people. That's just peachy. "How do you know that? An angel told me. How do you know it was an angel and not your own brain making shit up? Uh...well, I just know...and you are offending All
Weak God (Score:2)
Such a tender and sensitive god, unable to withstand anything, easily offended, and must have his imperfect creation - man, to be certain that god is not offended or get booboo feelings.
A real god would simply laugh at any criticisms, or smote those who utter blasphemy or apostasy by himself.
Then again, that god would have to exist, not made up in the minds of weak humans who cannot withstand anything, are easily offended, and get booboo feelings.
This was already documented at wikipedia (Score:2)
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damn_(disambiguation)
Blinding your own eyes to spite what they see. (Score:2)
It's a testament to political Darwinism that unfree mentalities willingly subvert themselves this way.
Anyone who believes "ignorance is strength" is playing chicken with a brick wall.
What good is a god who can't get shit done? (Score:2)
Quite frankly, the least I'd expect from an all-powerful entity is that it can at the very least do what any mere mortal can do. Else, why bother worship it if it can't even do what I can do?
So since that god is obviously not turning Wikipedia off, there's only three possible explanations:
1. The god doesn't give a fuck, which essentially means you're wasting your time.
2. The god actually wants that content to exist, which essentially means you're pissing your god off.
3. The god doesn't exist, which essentia
Impossible (Score:1)
You can't argue with religious people, because faith isn't based on facts that can be proved or disproven. So from their point of view, they're right and you'll always be wrong if you don't agree with their religion.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
And woke is a religion.
Trouble is, unlike islam, woke is dominant in our governments, universities and media.
Re: (Score:1)
I see. And therefore, to combat woke, right-wing nutters in the US are banning books in school libraries and telling universities what they are allowed to teach. It all makes sense now.
Re: (Score:2)
Woke is not a religion.
The definition is:
Woke: having or marked by an awareness of systemic injustices and prejudices, especially those involving the treatment of ethnic, racial, or sexual minorities.
And that's a problem for those who deny or would lie about the current and historic prejudices and injustices, and/or who do not want to acknowledge them.
Do Republicans and DeSantis lose in Florida if voters know accurate history? Probably not. But Florida government officials are trying to prevent current and
Re: (Score:2)
"Woke: having or marked by a PERCEPTION of systemic injustices and prejudices, especially those involving the treatment of ethnic, racial, or sexual minorities."
There. Fixed that for you. Your statement assumed the "awareness" was accurate at all levels. It most certainly isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
We live in a world where we believe we know something about history. Yet our ideas of history probably differ drastically from the opposition's ideas of history. Axis vs Allied forces in WWII, for example, would have drastically different viewpoints about what happened. Yet the Allies won, so that is the majority of the history that is propagated for most of the world to see. As each generation dies, we are left with only what was somehow made permanent and our ability to understand that record gets worse t