As an Indian, I hope they go this path to be banned. Imagine media coverage of a fight between a non functioning and corrupt government vs the most important source of knowledge for everyone.
such an asinine but casual remark about the elected government in power without any credible allegations of corruption nor non-functioning.
this was a case between one private news agency (ANI) vs another private foundation WMF in a court of law that's independent of any government influence or intervention. Why should the central government be brought in here in the critic of this dispute? Such nonsense based on hatred and political biases is the primary cause for many problems (in India and world over, the failure to accept the democratically elected governments legitimacy & carrying forth the hate and non-acceptance to put forth remarks & level allegations sans any basis. motivated idiocy unchecked.
Indian government has three branches: the legislative, the executive and the judiciary and court is part of third branch. Nowhere in my comment I said elected government or central government or politics.
That would be true if they were running Wikipedia out of the goodness of their heart. Wikipedia will not leave India as they are running to mould public opinion in a specific way. There is a reason foreign orgs are trying hard to meddle in Indian politics and the public still keeps electing the same leader which is unprecedented. Some day it will become a case study as to how the whole internet (“civilized people”) in all countries was bending over backwards to be politically correct, while India was resisting the pressure to hand over their future to a “trusted group of altruists at the center of everything”.
That would be true if WMF were running Wikipedia out of the goodness of their heart. They won’t leave India as they want to play a critical part in shaping public opinion among the largest group of people. Sadly people in India don’t agree with the political coverage of Wikipedia and other such media, which is what upsets almost all foreign NGOs, portals, companies in India. Some day it will become a case study as to how the whole internet (“civilized people”) in all countries was bending over backwards to be politically correct, while India was resisting the pressure to hand over their future to a “trusted group of altruists at the center of everything”.
I've since changed my opinion on what I said above. It sounds like they are complying in the short term to maintain their right to challenge this in the Indian courts, which actually seems like a good strategy.
I can't say I understand the rest of your comment, without more detail on which people (presumably not all 1.5 billion) are disagreeing with what coverage (presumably not all of it), etc.
The only way in which this could be possible, if not via VPNs, is via everyone have direct satellite internet, which is a bit difficult without good line of sight. It would also require an independent means of payment like layer II of bitcoin.
The better answer would be one where the ISPs don't have any ability to block websites. Web3 technologies could make it possible.
That's not quite accurate. E2EE, mesh networks, and similar are also available alternative technologies. Satellites are still corporate-driven (necessarily) or government driven and thus can be focal points to block.
Mesh networks are a nice idea in theory but none of them have succeeded at scale. There are some serious unresolved technical problems with discovery and routing. And even if those are solved, how do you incentivize enough people to participate in order to maintain adequate coverage?
The first issue is a technical one I think can be solved (think Fediverse-style setups with easily transferable entry into meshes, or multi-mesh joining). N! connections obviously can't be handled so not everything can be connected to everything, but making node transfers fluid and hierarchical with easy swap can make for a robust network. Sort of like how we currently route with DNS + IP4/6, but simpler and broadcasted DNS node provisioning and more flexibility from DNS down to subnetworks. If you can set up an entire mesh node from your cell phone with the click of a button, its sort of hard to shut down an internet. Add decentralized ledger tech (no, not a shitcoin :D) and you have a hard time shutting everything down outside an EMP.
For the second, ease of transition is how to overcome existing network effects. As an example, ADP is bleeding customers to Gusto because they make it so damn easy that the only reason you stay with ADP is because they provide a service (like PEO) that Gusto doesn't yet offer. (plus, less data leakage and sales). You can view Gusto/ADP as B2B providers, but they actually operate as platforms between companies and their employees/contractors and thus the network effect arguments apply. Network effects aren't something to fear or use as an excuse to not build, they're a strategy game.
Mesh networks can be good for spreading the reach of satellite networks.
Satellite networks can be managed by foreign corporations that can in theory receive payment via a cryptocurrency without control of the local government.
