BBC Modi Documentary Removal(blog.archive.org)
blog.archive.org
BBC Modi Documentary Removal
https://blog.archive.org/2023/01/27/bbc-modi-documentary-removal/
223 comments
Internet Archive takes down upload of BBC’s Modi documentary - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34504085
Censorship, arrests, power cuts. India scrambles to block BBC documentary. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/01/25/india-bbc-na...
Censorship, arrests, power cuts. India scrambles to block BBC documentary. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/01/25/india-bbc-na...
This post was #1 on hacker news. Seems it's been censored out.
[deleted]
Looks like BBC wants to keep itself in control and not authorise unwarranted copies of the video around Internet.
The BBC produces content and licenses it around the world in exchange for money. Is it really surprising that like other copyright holders, they want to control unauthorised copying?
The BBC produces content and licenses it around the world in exchange for money. Is it really surprising that like other copyright holders, they want to control unauthorised copying?
I like how the larger thread has been removed by citing a smaller thread focused on Elon musk as a talking point.
This thread had 221 upvotes as opposed to the Elon musk focused thread with 72 upvotes and a fraction of the discussion.
This thread had 221 upvotes as opposed to the Elon musk focused thread with 72 upvotes and a fraction of the discussion.
Twitter's been removing the documentary at Modi's request: https://theintercept.com/2023/01/24/twitter-elon-musk-modi-i...
That’s just free speech absolutism!
It’s free speech only if your country is not part of Tesla supply chain.
Not sure how Tesla or even Twitter is exposed to India for Musk wanting to please the Indian government.
As big as India is, it keeps being considered as the ‘next billion’ revenue generators for tech companies - but not sure when that day will actually arrive.
Teslas aren’t for sale in India, not that many will be afford it (besides the few virtue signaling billionaires / millionaires who might buy it after acquiring their dream Ferrari or whatever). Nor does India contribute to the supply chain AFAIK.
Pretty sure Indians don’t contribute to significant % of ad or subscription revenue for Twitter or other tech companies either (compared to USA or Europe - outliers being websites like Quora) given the low purchasing power. I recall New York and London together making more $$$ in a day for Uber than the whole of India
So not sure why tech companies are afraid of taking on India, especially Musk. Or maybe just doing what the India govt wants instead of fighting is another way of signaling that they don’t care what happens in India anymore
As big as India is, it keeps being considered as the ‘next billion’ revenue generators for tech companies - but not sure when that day will actually arrive.
Teslas aren’t for sale in India, not that many will be afford it (besides the few virtue signaling billionaires / millionaires who might buy it after acquiring their dream Ferrari or whatever). Nor does India contribute to the supply chain AFAIK.
Pretty sure Indians don’t contribute to significant % of ad or subscription revenue for Twitter or other tech companies either (compared to USA or Europe - outliers being websites like Quora) given the low purchasing power. I recall New York and London together making more $$$ in a day for Uber than the whole of India
So not sure why tech companies are afraid of taking on India, especially Musk. Or maybe just doing what the India govt wants instead of fighting is another way of signaling that they don’t care what happens in India anymore
Modi’s people are free to ask for whatever they want.
There are plenty of examples of Elon Musk's hypocrisy, but this is not one of them. He has always said that intended to comply with the laws of any country.
It is perhaps not hypocrisy, but it is still an egg on his face.
He's the one that made the incompatible promises that Twitter will be "free speech absolutist" but at the same time will follow the laws from your average corrupt and fascist government.
He's the one that made the incompatible promises that Twitter will be "free speech absolutist" but at the same time will follow the laws from your average corrupt and fascist government.
> He's the one that made the incompatible claims that Twitter will be "free speech absolutist" but at the same time will follow the laws from your average corrupt dictator.
Er, is that what he claimed? All I've seen is:
> By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.
> I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.
- https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376
Which this is - for better or worse - in line with.
Er, is that what he claimed? All I've seen is:
> By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.
> I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.
- https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376
Which this is - for better or worse - in line with.
Free speech in the first amendment sense means that Government will not regulate speech. Any speech is not free speech merely by matching law of the land. This is an unserious standard. It means every brutal authoritarian regime including North Korea has free speech. By this definition we end up conflating censorship with free speech.
Ultimately, the conception of free speech is rooted outside of legal standards and closely related to universal human rights.
Ultimately, the conception of free speech is rooted outside of legal standards and closely related to universal human rights.
It's not censored in America though.
They are following Indian censorship laws for Indian IP addresses.
Not sure if that's the hill they went to die on, but sure there's an argument they should try anyway. Google tried to resist the Chinese gov early on then shut down the entire service there when that became infeasible (which went well beyond taking down a couple links).
Twitter probably has a long existing framework in place with each region legal system and the degrees to which they will listen to it. And India isn't exactly a North Korean type dictatorship where companies would normally disregard their demands out-right.
Maybe this will bring attention to that issue. I'm happy people are holding Elon Musk to account on free speech, even when most people are just doing just to spite him.
They are following Indian censorship laws for Indian IP addresses.
Not sure if that's the hill they went to die on, but sure there's an argument they should try anyway. Google tried to resist the Chinese gov early on then shut down the entire service there when that became infeasible (which went well beyond taking down a couple links).
Twitter probably has a long existing framework in place with each region legal system and the degrees to which they will listen to it. And India isn't exactly a North Korean type dictatorship where companies would normally disregard their demands out-right.
Maybe this will bring attention to that issue. I'm happy people are holding Elon Musk to account on free speech, even when most people are just doing just to spite him.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600
> ... Sorry to be a free speech absolutist
> ... Sorry to be a free speech absolutist
The full quote is even more impressive.
> Starlink has been told by some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources. We will not do so unless at gunpoint.
> Starlink has been told by some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources. We will not do so unless at gunpoint.
No, its moving the goalposts so far as to redefine the words, and should not be given any credence as a serious argument.
Befuddling why platforms don't just adopt the narrative of "as much free speech as local laws allow". Which is ostensibly how it works already, but I suppose they don't want it in writing since it might encourage actual govs specifically legislate local or even subnational content laws.
Because most people don't want to participate in communities where hate speech, harassment and misinformation are allowed to run rampant simply because it's technically legal, and most advertisers don't want their ads associated with it either.
> He has always said that intended to comply with the laws of any country.
Any country? Such as the Principality of Sealand? Or Liberland?
Any country? Such as the Principality of Sealand? Or Liberland?
Yeah but it seems strange: make a law that you cannot speak against the government and of course we politely obey and keep quiet. Ask us to remove something and we will debate it, fight it and expose it.
I think the second approach is right even if the request were “innocuous”.
I think the second approach is right even if the request were “innocuous”.
[deleted]
Is it actually “removed” globally or is it just blocked from viewing in India? This would be a big deal if it’s the former.
The Intercept post linked above says:
> Twitter even blocked Indian audiences from seeing two posts by actor John Cusack linking to the documentary. (They remain visible to American audiences.)
And links to the legal request on Lumen[0].
Here's tweets from the Information & Broadcasting Ministry[1] attempting to justify the block, and clarifying the directions:
> The directions to block content from @BBCWorld vicious propaganda were issued by Secretary, I&B, on Friday using the emergency powers under the IT Rules, 2021. Both @YouTube and @Twitter have complied with the directions.Governments in India.
> YT has been instructed to block the video if uploaded again. @Twitter has been directed to block tweets linking video on other platforms.
> Accordingly, @BBCWorld ’s vile propaganda was found to be undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India, and having the potential to adversely impact India's friendly relations with foreign countries as also public order within the country.
[0]: https://lumendatabase.org/file_uploads/files/5097820/005/097...
[1]: Senior Adviser, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi.
> Twitter even blocked Indian audiences from seeing two posts by actor John Cusack linking to the documentary. (They remain visible to American audiences.)
And links to the legal request on Lumen[0].
Here's tweets from the Information & Broadcasting Ministry[1] attempting to justify the block, and clarifying the directions:
> The directions to block content from @BBCWorld vicious propaganda were issued by Secretary, I&B, on Friday using the emergency powers under the IT Rules, 2021. Both @YouTube and @Twitter have complied with the directions.Governments in India.
> YT has been instructed to block the video if uploaded again. @Twitter has been directed to block tweets linking video on other platforms.
> Accordingly, @BBCWorld ’s vile propaganda was found to be undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India, and having the potential to adversely impact India's friendly relations with foreign countries as also public order within the country.
[0]: https://lumendatabase.org/file_uploads/files/5097820/005/097...
[1]: Senior Adviser, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi.
The tweets are available:
https://twitter.com/derekobrienmp/status/1615893704312774656
https://twitter.com/derekobrienmp/status/1616247977294827520
https://twitter.com/derekobrienmp/status/1615893704312774656
https://twitter.com/derekobrienmp/status/1616247977294827520
The above tweets are blocked in India.
https://imgur.com/cYElEX2.png https://imgur.com/v99RGuQ.png
https://imgur.com/cYElEX2.png https://imgur.com/v99RGuQ.png
Why does that article say Elon caved as though he's personally involved in every moderation decision. He wasn't even aware of it and sees it as a problem to be fixed.
"First I’ve heard. It is not possible for me to fix every aspect of Twitter worldwide overnight, while still running Tesla and SpaceX, among other things."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1618319479662055426
"First I’ve heard. It is not possible for me to fix every aspect of Twitter worldwide overnight, while still running Tesla and SpaceX, among other things."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1618319479662055426
Streisand effect - I had no idea about this and now I am curious and will find a torrent of it. I mean, I'm not Indian so I suspect Modi doesn't care about me personally but still.
This contains both parts:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:B96B9C1CD9A0332E82023FA934DDD4ACF94377DE&tr=http://tracker.trackerfix.com:80/announce&tr=udp://9.rarbg.m...
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:B96B9C1CD9A0332E82023FA934DDD4ACF94377DE&tr=http://tracker.trackerfix.com:80/announce&tr=udp://9.rarbg.m...
<pre>
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:B96B9C1CD9A0332E82023FA934DDD4ACF94377DE&tr=http://tracker.trackerfix.com:80/announce&tr=http://tracker.trackerfix.com/announce&tr=udp://9.rarbg.me:2790&tr=udp://9.rarbg.to:2760&tr=udp://tracker.thinelephant.org:12710&tr=udp://tracker.tallpenguin.org:15790TIL that four spaces indents it into code blocks... thanks!
[deleted]
[deleted]
available in Odysee already
Watch it man. Know that it's 100% true but even then covers just a small part of what really happened and continues to be normalized over decades. That coming straight from a survivor here.
Being in tech, what is surprising is how powerful the post-truth era is and how such things can be hidden in plain sight by just knowing how to manipulate Google, Twitter, Wikipedia and all social platforms by using an organized army of trolls.
Being in tech, what is surprising is how powerful the post-truth era is and how such things can be hidden in plain sight by just knowing how to manipulate Google, Twitter, Wikipedia and all social platforms by using an organized army of trolls.
The awful truth is that a large section of the population knows that the documentary is true and supports Modi even more for it.
The minority hatred in India is now naked and public.
The minority hatred in India is now naked and public.
It's still live on the BBC (in the UK to licence fee payers I suppose) though, so this is a slightly weird one.
Possibly the BBC DMCA all content internet-archived, and the controversy about this particular content is a coincidence here?
Possibly the BBC DMCA all content internet-archived, and the controversy about this particular content is a coincidence here?
I mean if BBC has the independence to make such a docu they likely also have the means to keep it up on their site.
Weather other sides carved to political pressure or where "tricked" by malicious DMCA notices (or non DMCA copyright take-down requests) or malicious flagging etc. or a mix of both is also an interesting question.
Weather other sides carved to political pressure or where "tricked" by malicious DMCA notices (or non DMCA copyright take-down requests) or malicious flagging etc. or a mix of both is also an interesting question.
Some messages in this thread speculate that DMCA notices would have been fake. I guess we find clarity soon.
The Indian right wingers I know think the ban is ridiculous either on principle or because it simply plays into the Streisand effect. There is some openness to banning BBC altogether as foreign state-funded propaganda (akin to how Europe has banned RT), but everyone seems to think this selective ban of the documentary is a self-own by the Modi administration.
> akin to how Europe has banned RT
I can’t agree with this analogy, RT wasn’t banned before Russia started an invasion.
The difference is that prior invasion it’s a different opinions, after the shooting begins it’s part of the warfare and not a public debate activity.
For example it’s completely okay to claim that Zelensky should go and Ukraine and NATO caused the war, totally not acceptable to claim that Zelenksy left the country and requested amnesty in Poland. At war time yok can’t afford BS like that because the impact can have immediate and irreversible consequences.
I can’t agree with this analogy, RT wasn’t banned before Russia started an invasion.
The difference is that prior invasion it’s a different opinions, after the shooting begins it’s part of the warfare and not a public debate activity.
For example it’s completely okay to claim that Zelensky should go and Ukraine and NATO caused the war, totally not acceptable to claim that Zelenksy left the country and requested amnesty in Poland. At war time yok can’t afford BS like that because the impact can have immediate and irreversible consequences.
The UK once invaded India. Maybe that was too long ago to matter, but I think a lot of people in India might think otherwise.
They can think whatever they like but they will be wrong if they think that.
Subjectively wrong (e.g. you disagree), or objectively wrong? How could such a thing be objectively determined at all?
There are people alive today who grew up in an India subjugated by the UK. It wasn't so long ago in the grand scheme of things.
There are people alive today who grew up in an India subjugated by the UK. It wasn't so long ago in the grand scheme of things.
There are a lot of people today in India subjugated by Indians as well.
Objectively wrong, there’s no evidence of ongoing British invasion of India.
The claim is that the UK once invaded and subjugated India, recently enough to matter. Not that India is presently in that state.
The analogy works when the owner of the foreign media also is waging a war against you or your allies. Just because some time in the past you had a military conflict doesn’t make it the same thing because something happened in the past doesn’t have immediate and irreversible effects. Since there are no immediate risks, you get the chance to respond and correct and that’s why you can have free media.
Besides, everyone was once invaded by the British.
Besides, everyone was once invaded by the British.
What you're saying is that you, subjectively, think that the UK's past invasion of India isn't relevant because it was long ago and not ongoing (and because the UK did this to lots of people, that makes it a lesser crime?) And I'm saying that quite a lot of people don't agree with your subjective judgement.
Objectively, the facts are that the UK once invaded India and some Indians alive today personally experienced that subjugation. But what any of that means or implies is subjective.
Objectively, the facts are that the UK once invaded India and some Indians alive today personally experienced that subjugation. But what any of that means or implies is subjective.
No, Objectively UK's past invasion of India doesn't create a cause for British media to pose immediate and irreversible risks to India.
This doesn't mean that Indians shouldn't be cautious but gives them an opportunity for healthy debate thanks to input from outside. Because there's no immediate and irreversible dangers, they can counter the British arguments or get something from it to make their own position better.
This doesn't mean that Indians shouldn't be cautious but gives them an opportunity for healthy debate thanks to input from outside. Because there's no immediate and irreversible dangers, they can counter the British arguments or get something from it to make their own position better.
That’s not the invasion they have a chip on their shoulder about
There's still a huge blind spot in the west when it comes to "our" propaganda. You never see the BBC or Radio Free Asia get the "state owned media" tag on social media that's applied to anything Russian or Chinese since 2016.
I think Indians should run media in UK and expose Rishi or whoever they like.
Asians should flag the British media as foreign, can’t expect British do it for them.
Asians should flag the British media as foreign, can’t expect British do it for them.
I do think that there are substantive differences in the kind of "propaganda" between Russia and the West.
The reporting in the west is certainly ideologically biased with lots of ignorance and naturally often steeped in sensationalism.
Russias reporting is very often an intentional hostile psyops directed by state forces. Whatever take damages western society most is getting air time.
Its the same with western NGOs vs russian influence campaigns.
Those NGOs were in Russia since the 90s and havent changed a bit. Its the russian state that changed in a way that those NGOs are now hostile and detrimental to the cleptocracy. Now they are all banned.
In contrast Russias support of extremist groups in the west has no ideological consistency and is only aimed at doing maximum damage.
The reporting in the west is certainly ideologically biased with lots of ignorance and naturally often steeped in sensationalism.
Russias reporting is very often an intentional hostile psyops directed by state forces. Whatever take damages western society most is getting air time.
Its the same with western NGOs vs russian influence campaigns.
Those NGOs were in Russia since the 90s and havent changed a bit. Its the russian state that changed in a way that those NGOs are now hostile and detrimental to the cleptocracy. Now they are all banned.
In contrast Russias support of extremist groups in the west has no ideological consistency and is only aimed at doing maximum damage.
I think at this point there have been more debunked reports of Russian influence from our own propaganda organs than actual Russian influence.
Not that you're wrong, they're trying, but we are just so much bigger.
Not that you're wrong, they're trying, but we are just so much bigger.
> You never see the BBC or Radio Free Asia get the "state owned media" tag on social media
Youtube at least tags BBC videos with "BBC is a British public broadcast service."
Youtube at least tags BBC videos with "BBC is a British public broadcast service."
If we're talking about war, the BBC was an active participant in the coup that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. Ample reason for any country that values its sovereignty to ban the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20050...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20050...
This is not quite what happened. Illia Kyva [1] is a Ukranian politician who was a former presidential candidate, as well as the head of Socialist Party in Ukraine. He is pro Russia and skeptical of Western interests and motivations in Ukraine. After the war this did not change and he supported Russia while blaming Zelensky and urging him to resign.
Zelensky then decided to purge him and his entire party, charging him with treason. This led to Kyva making increasingly unhinged claims and recommendations. Among those were that Russia should nuke Ukraine, and that Zelensky had secretly fled to Poland. Some Russian outlets (I cannot find this story on RT, but perhaps I missed something?) ran this story such as here [2].
The article certainly doesn't state it as a fact. Instead it recounts the events in a relatively impartial way - two Ukrainian lawmakers said he fled. Rumors of something similar were spread shortly before the article was published and Zelensky rejected them while providing video evidence of himself in Ukraine. It also mentions that the US reportedly offered to help him escape Ukraine, and also that he rejected the offer. End of article.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illia_Kyva
[2] - https://sputniknews.com/20220304/zelensky-left-ukraine-for-p...
Zelensky then decided to purge him and his entire party, charging him with treason. This led to Kyva making increasingly unhinged claims and recommendations. Among those were that Russia should nuke Ukraine, and that Zelensky had secretly fled to Poland. Some Russian outlets (I cannot find this story on RT, but perhaps I missed something?) ran this story such as here [2].
The article certainly doesn't state it as a fact. Instead it recounts the events in a relatively impartial way - two Ukrainian lawmakers said he fled. Rumors of something similar were spread shortly before the article was published and Zelensky rejected them while providing video evidence of himself in Ukraine. It also mentions that the US reportedly offered to help him escape Ukraine, and also that he rejected the offer. End of article.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illia_Kyva
[2] - https://sputniknews.com/20220304/zelensky-left-ukraine-for-p...
Over the years the India telecommunications department has repeatedly null routed or diverted traffic to BBC websites thru scrubbers domestically. Know this because I have infra in India and can observe them do this regularly (when our customers complain I'll have to escalate to the local transit provider such as TATA). Usually it's blocking websites hosting content that is critical of any govt official or their family members. They'll not always understand what they're blocking and occasionally drop a CDNs address space which is multi tenant.
I would add that:
There is a a difference between someone operating as a news channel actively continuously repeatedly spreading misinformation with the intention to undermine a government and a documentation which seem to be mostly correct but unpleasant to hear information.
Also there is a difference between restricting availability in your jurisdiction (country, country union, i.e. case RT) and trying to restrict it beyond that.
While it is questionable banning BBC in India is well in the right of the Indian government, it banning BBC (content) outside of India is on the other hand not something which should be possible/allowed/tolerated.
There is a a difference between someone operating as a news channel actively continuously repeatedly spreading misinformation with the intention to undermine a government and a documentation which seem to be mostly correct but unpleasant to hear information.
Also there is a difference between restricting availability in your jurisdiction (country, country union, i.e. case RT) and trying to restrict it beyond that.
While it is questionable banning BBC in India is well in the right of the Indian government, it banning BBC (content) outside of India is on the other hand not something which should be possible/allowed/tolerated.
akin to how Europe has banned RT
I agree that it's a very different case (see my other comment) but like most news organizations BBC is not always fully honest and often also have people which huge influence on their reporting.
It's just that it's more about selective reporting and creating news in a way that people come to conclusions not backed by truth without making up information (tho in practice it's often not that much better then making up information as most people will be tricked into believing misinformation you just never wrote down).
Like for example a reporting about a demo consisting of a march and then multiple speech and announcements at a plaza being written highlighting that extremists taking part in it and making it look as if only a small number people took part in it. But selectively ommiting (or hiding in subtle formulations) that 80+% of protestors where "normal" people and that while the number of people during the march where small the number at the plaza wasn't.
(One of the most stupid parts is that the "independent state media" using such tricks often doesn't realize that this is perfect to convince people of conspiracies and "media is all lies" etc., e.g. in that example they did claim "they lied there where 20 times the number of people (compared to the march) here see picture of plaza" and then backed down later one to "we miscounted it where only 15 times" making many people believe that this (15x) is the truth and media is outright making up things (the truth was 3-4 times of people at the plaza compared to the march)).
It's just that it's more about selective reporting and creating news in a way that people come to conclusions not backed by truth without making up information (tho in practice it's often not that much better then making up information as most people will be tricked into believing misinformation you just never wrote down).
Like for example a reporting about a demo consisting of a march and then multiple speech and announcements at a plaza being written highlighting that extremists taking part in it and making it look as if only a small number people took part in it. But selectively ommiting (or hiding in subtle formulations) that 80+% of protestors where "normal" people and that while the number of people during the march where small the number at the plaza wasn't.
(One of the most stupid parts is that the "independent state media" using such tricks often doesn't realize that this is perfect to convince people of conspiracies and "media is all lies" etc., e.g. in that example they did claim "they lied there where 20 times the number of people (compared to the march) here see picture of plaza" and then backed down later one to "we miscounted it where only 15 times" making many people believe that this (15x) is the truth and media is outright making up things (the truth was 3-4 times of people at the plaza compared to the march)).
I will watch it right now from BBC. : )
If you care about your mental health, I would recommend against it - it's a chilling and depressing story of how an indian politician uses communal violence to further his career and promote religious fundamentalist fascist ideology in India.
Imagine going into a time machine and telling people that they shouldn't watch a documentary about some contemporary madman murderer such as pol pot or someone like that because it'll be bad for their mental health?
Maybe people are meant to face these things straight up and be hard about them
Maybe people are meant to face these things straight up and be hard about them
Do you watch uncensored videos of what is happening in American prisons and Guantanamo bay, of mexican mafia torturing people, of Wagner group military removing tescacles of a captive with pliers or smashing in the head of a deserting soldier with a sledge hammer?
Its all out there, and you' ve got to stay informed!
Its all out there, and you' ve got to stay informed!
I'm sorry, but I have no choice but to take this comment in extremely bad faith. The BBC isn't broadcasting stuff on that level with this documentary.
Its simply taking the OP's argument to the logical extreme. He demonstrated no respect for the other commenter's concern and no argument for why the bounderies defined were unreasonable, only mocked them..
I think it is only fair to question if he lives up to hos own standards
I think it is only fair to question if he lives up to hos own standards
Heh, yes.
Some of those I turned off after a few seconds, but I think I got the gist.
Some of those I turned off after a few seconds, but I think I got the gist.
True. But it's also true that cognitive dissonance is a real thing. People actively feel discomfort when confronted with truth that conflicts with established belief, and some people just can't handle the truth - so they seek out more lies, and help to spread them as a coping mechanism. The lies are soothing. The truth is too hard.
If your preference to the truth is drinking boxes of lie juice that's on you. People acting like the media is somehow at fault here for telling it is just another box of juice to me.
Personally - I'm willing to fight tooth and nail for the truth, and I'm sick of people acting like there's some kind of ambiguity here. The world has enough genocide as is without people being wishy-washy about it while it's happening.
If you have a problem with mass murder predicated on bigotry, it's time to take a stand, just saying.
Personally - I'm willing to fight tooth and nail for the truth, and I'm sick of people acting like there's some kind of ambiguity here. The world has enough genocide as is without people being wishy-washy about it while it's happening.
If you have a problem with mass murder predicated on bigotry, it's time to take a stand, just saying.
Imagine someone’s comment being voted down simply because you don’t agree with it, regardless how valid the arguments within are.
Which is expected behaviour on HN. As is not posting about downvotes.
So, where’s pvg to whine about that? Guess you’ve taken their place?
I absolutely agree with this policy, using downvotes as a sign of disagreement. There are other people who complain about, one could even say whine, about it in their profiles.
You can know Modi is a genocidal bigot without watching all the details.
Imagine thinking that the only way to educate yourself is to watch a video that you agree could be bad for someones mental health.
Maybe people can learn in other ways that also don't subject them to harm.
Maybe people can learn in other ways that also don't subject them to harm.
This is a valid point. Film as a media is a far more potent vector for propaganda than print. Increasingly this is being leveraged by bad actors or those who are more interested in persuasion or psychological effect than in presenting truth. That said I assume John Cusack isn’t trying to psy-op the public in this particular instance. But as a more general point, I agree people are increasingly being impacted in unproductive ways by inflammatory videos.
> Film as a media is a far more potent vector for propaganda than print.
I definitely agree with this, but in my perception the moving images themselves are secondary in effect to the audio. Tone of voice and emotive music in particular are very powerful methods of hacking emotions. When watching videos that I think are trying to be manipulative with music or tone of voice, I like to mute the audio and rely on subtitles. This is also one of the reasons that I read newspaper articles but avoid all radio and TV news broadcasts (the other reason being that newspapers hire better writers and provide more details and nuance. I read https://lite.cnn.com/ to stay in touch, but the writing there is abysmal.)
I definitely agree with this, but in my perception the moving images themselves are secondary in effect to the audio. Tone of voice and emotive music in particular are very powerful methods of hacking emotions. When watching videos that I think are trying to be manipulative with music or tone of voice, I like to mute the audio and rely on subtitles. This is also one of the reasons that I read newspaper articles but avoid all radio and TV news broadcasts (the other reason being that newspapers hire better writers and provide more details and nuance. I read https://lite.cnn.com/ to stay in touch, but the writing there is abysmal.)
I’m converging on this myself. Very little interest in news tv, especially the highly partisan flavor which increasingly dominates. Sadly some of the better print journalism is paywalled. Sub stack is great but I’m used to free so probably not doing my part to support independent voices.
With self-censorship like this, who needs repressive government policies?
I'm sorry. I didn't know wanting to read something rather than watch a video is somehow self-censorship.
Tell me again how video is the ONLY means by which someone can educate themselves? Without using words.
Edit: In fact, by pretending that the ONLY means to watch this is a video which everyone in this thread admits is hard to watch, you are in fact helping to limit the knowledge that it shares.
In a way, you protecting Modi.
Tell me again how video is the ONLY means by which someone can educate themselves? Without using words.
Edit: In fact, by pretending that the ONLY means to watch this is a video which everyone in this thread admits is hard to watch, you are in fact helping to limit the knowledge that it shares.
In a way, you protecting Modi.
I can't tell you anything with all these words you put in my mouth.
Share links to reading material that informs the reader without harming them, or admit that by your tortured logic, you are also "protecting" Modi.
Share links to reading material that informs the reader without harming them, or admit that by your tortured logic, you are also "protecting" Modi.
If a documentary about current events is enough to wreck you somehow then you've got other issues
What's it like being okay with hurting people?
This is what you are advocating for.
Rather than present other means to learn about this, you insist that this is the ONLY way to learn about this.
It's not education of the topic you are promoting, but hurting people. You are, in many ways, supporting Modi's cause by actively working to limit the spread of the knowledge of a chilling and depressing story of how an Indian politician uses communal violence to further his career and promote religious fundamentalist fascist ideology in India.
Why are you protecting this?
This is what you are advocating for.
Rather than present other means to learn about this, you insist that this is the ONLY way to learn about this.
It's not education of the topic you are promoting, but hurting people. You are, in many ways, supporting Modi's cause by actively working to limit the spread of the knowledge of a chilling and depressing story of how an Indian politician uses communal violence to further his career and promote religious fundamentalist fascist ideology in India.
Why are you protecting this?
> documentary about mass murder predicated on hate crimes
> mass murder predicated on hate crimes
choose one
> mass murder predicated on hate crimes
choose one
Why are you working to protect and defend mass murder and hate crimes?
With 8 billion people in the world, even with the 4 billion when I was born, there's enough genuine evil[0] in the world to wreck anyone with even the slightest capacity for empathy. I have no idea if this documentary is or isn't at that level, because I have enough going on without wading into Indian politics.
Will this documentary cause its viewers to end whatever specific ills are shown within? I presume so, otherwise it wouldn't be getting censored.
Will it cause any specific person to effect that change? Probably not, most of us have no influence whatsoever over Indian politics or economics.
[0] or, if you don't like the word "evil", sadistic Machiavellian psychopathy
Will this documentary cause its viewers to end whatever specific ills are shown within? I presume so, otherwise it wouldn't be getting censored.
Will it cause any specific person to effect that change? Probably not, most of us have no influence whatsoever over Indian politics or economics.
[0] or, if you don't like the word "evil", sadistic Machiavellian psychopathy
I care about my mental health, and i will now watch it on principle, because of what you commented. I will also share the link more than i would have. Thanks for caring.
The BJP party and ideology of RSS(Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) are just two sides of the same coin - hopefully India will survive this ethnofacism.
Not sure if I want to watch it, although -assuming it's all true- knowing to what extent a politician can screw his own people can be instructive even if we know that it could never happen in our backyard (/s).
if you care about individual liberty in the mid-term future, I would recommend to look into it, sure it'll be hard to watch.
At this point I got used to that kind of story.
>If you care about your mental health,
One should be enough mentally stable learning something about reality.
One should be enough mentally stable learning something about reality.
You've learnt everything there is to know about paedophiles, cannivals and people that dimember their victims? .
Have you ever heard about hoa mental health is going for people that have to moderate social networks for this shit?
Have you ever heard about hoa mental health is going for people that have to moderate social networks for this shit?
>people that dimember their victims
Yes i even eat beef for example.
> social networks
Yeah i don't do that, THATS not good for your health, not knowledge.
Yes i even eat beef for example.
> social networks
Yeah i don't do that, THATS not good for your health, not knowledge.
> Yes i even eat beef for example
Good one. Doesnt count if you've never been to a slaughterhouse and only ever see a steak wrapped a plastic at the supermarket shelf.
Good one. Doesnt count if you've never been to a slaughterhouse and only ever see a steak wrapped a plastic at the supermarket shelf.
ah yes never watch documentaries about war either then? Masterpieces like The world at war etc?
True, i would say don't use social media if you care about your mental health, instead watch documentary's like "First Kill" or "Russia's way from the tsar to putin"..but who am i ;)
WARNING: First Kill is a deeply disturbing documentary about human nature in war (The Writer of Full Metal jacket and Apocalypse Now speaks too about his memory's in Vietnam), it's brutal and brutally honest, and the best explanation why you as a person should never ever go to war (if it's not absolutely necessary)...you have been warned.
WARNING: First Kill is a deeply disturbing documentary about human nature in war (The Writer of Full Metal jacket and Apocalypse Now speaks too about his memory's in Vietnam), it's brutal and brutally honest, and the best explanation why you as a person should never ever go to war (if it's not absolutely necessary)...you have been warned.
Yeah, Indian judicial system is only fair and independent when it's time to bash modi for trying to undermine it.
The right wing flex is to demonstrate power.
The people who are into that admire the strongman, and don’t really care about the how and why. Understanding nuance or balancing interests is cast as weakness. Caveman clubs cavelady, ugh ugh.
The people who are into that admire the strongman, and don’t really care about the how and why. Understanding nuance or balancing interests is cast as weakness. Caveman clubs cavelady, ugh ugh.
If only the USSR had understood this. Forget trying to infiltrate American lefty movements. They could have rebranded Soviet communism as a tough no nonsense real man’s ideology and brought big chunks of the American right.
Or maybe not. People who were actually tough and did things like fight in WWII may not have fallen for it. This stuff appeals to wannabes.
Or maybe not. People who were actually tough and did things like fight in WWII may not have fallen for it. This stuff appeals to wannabes.
A 2023 Soviet Union probably would. You didn’t have the ability to target messages in those days - mass media and organizations required mass appeal.
For better or worse, times are different but people are the same in terms of vulnerability to demagoguery. McCarthy played to postwar America’s fear and anxiety the same as people are doing today. As myko said, modern Russia’s influence operations are pushing a Soviet-like narrative without the communism. Stalin was pushed as a father figure, Putin was wrestling bears shirtless and doing other man stuff, etc.
For better or worse, times are different but people are the same in terms of vulnerability to demagoguery. McCarthy played to postwar America’s fear and anxiety the same as people are doing today. As myko said, modern Russia’s influence operations are pushing a Soviet-like narrative without the communism. Stalin was pushed as a father figure, Putin was wrestling bears shirtless and doing other man stuff, etc.
> trying to infiltrate American lefty movements
How much of this was real, as opposed to hysteria?
> They could have rebranded Soviet communism as a tough
We had 'independance-loving' Nigel Farage admiring Putin
How much of this was real, as opposed to hysteria?
> They could have rebranded Soviet communism as a tough
We had 'independance-loving' Nigel Farage admiring Putin
They could have rebranded Soviet communism as a tough no nonsense real man’s ideology and brought big chunks of the American right.
Russia has a lot more difficulty subverting the left in the US, though they do fund the more radical elements (which have very little power compared to the centrist dems and extremist right). The Mueller report goes into a lot of Russia's efforts in this arena.
Perhaps I am giving the BBC too much credit but I think this was a brilliant move on their part. Forbidding something will make it more popular and perhaps that was the goal. Now the video will be shared {n} times more than it previously would have.
Maybe for a few weeks. But years from now it will be far harder to find because of this removal. the Streisand is aptly named. Celebrities exist in the moment. Politicians like Modi are looking at protecting their reputations five ten or twenty years down the road.
You are perhaps giving the documentary too much more credit than it deserves. There are no new revelations in the documentary as far as I know. The infamous Babu Bajrangi Tehelka sting came out all the way back in 2007. The Indian public knew all about the allegations against Modi in 2014 when he was first elected as PM.
There is value in letting non-Indians know, which is the whole point of the documentary.
Everyone in India knows about Gujarat 2002, Babri Masjid, and the whole discourse and context around this, but not necessarily foreigners.
Btw, plenty of BJP voters (like my extended family) detest the anti-Muslim shit they do, but have no other choice because in a Parliamentary system, you are voting for your MP, not your national leader. I seriously hope the BBC brought that point up.
Everyone in India knows about Gujarat 2002, Babri Masjid, and the whole discourse and context around this, but not necessarily foreigners.
Btw, plenty of BJP voters (like my extended family) detest the anti-Muslim shit they do, but have no other choice because in a Parliamentary system, you are voting for your MP, not your national leader. I seriously hope the BBC brought that point up.
>There is value in letting non-Indians know, which is the whole point of the documentary.
I don't see it. Most people outside India do not have enough interest in India's politics to want to spend enough time to develop a nuanced understanding. I don't see the value in people in other countries develop, for lack of a better word, a "John Oliver" level of understanding of my country's internal affairs.
>because in a Parliamentary system, you are voting for your MP, not your national leader
That is almost entirely opposite the case with Modi though. Most BJP voters vote directly for Modi (and BJP's electoral campaigns reflect this) because they like him and have trust in him, even if they don't particularly like/care about the local candidate of BJP. Modi has been quite successful in turning Indian elections quasi-presidential. Forget general elections, BJP goes even into state and even local municipal elections asking for votes in Modi's name.
I don't see it. Most people outside India do not have enough interest in India's politics to want to spend enough time to develop a nuanced understanding. I don't see the value in people in other countries develop, for lack of a better word, a "John Oliver" level of understanding of my country's internal affairs.
>because in a Parliamentary system, you are voting for your MP, not your national leader
That is almost entirely opposite the case with Modi though. Most BJP voters vote directly for Modi (and BJP's electoral campaigns reflect this) because they like him and have trust in him, even if they don't particularly like/care about the local candidate of BJP. Modi has been quite successful in turning Indian elections quasi-presidential. Forget general elections, BJP goes even into state and even local municipal elections asking for votes in Modi's name.
for your first point, I agree that you don't want a John Oliver style treatment. That was just problematic and innacurate (sadly, as most John Oliver segments are. they're a Dem pastiche of Carlson Tucker tbh). That said, I just watched the Modi Question, and honestly, I don't see anything too surprising or "anti-national" in it. It seemed like a massive whattaburger around shit that is basically open knowledge about the Gujarat BJP and Modi himself.
With regards to your second point, it's plain wrong, at least in the state my family is from. The only reason they and the rest of their district vote BJP is because the INC MLA is a bootlegger who shot 2 police officers in 2019 and has open connections with heroin mafia types across the border in Punjab. Delhi is far away and our state still has extreme autonomy (and we tend to have a superiority complex over other states tbh). They don't care if Modi or Rahul or Kejri become PM, because at the end of the day, actual decisions in our area come down to the Panchayat, the MLA, and the CM. Btw, every tehsil except ours flipped to INC because of the complacent Modi worship you mentioned. It may play in states like UP or Bihar where margins of victory are massive, but not in states where an election can be changed by 1,000 votes.
Edit: thanks for the negative votes Desis on HN. This is why Paharis prevent non-Paharis from getting residency in our state - https://himachal.nic.in/WriteReadData/l892s/13_l892s/3618435...
With regards to your second point, it's plain wrong, at least in the state my family is from. The only reason they and the rest of their district vote BJP is because the INC MLA is a bootlegger who shot 2 police officers in 2019 and has open connections with heroin mafia types across the border in Punjab. Delhi is far away and our state still has extreme autonomy (and we tend to have a superiority complex over other states tbh). They don't care if Modi or Rahul or Kejri become PM, because at the end of the day, actual decisions in our area come down to the Panchayat, the MLA, and the CM. Btw, every tehsil except ours flipped to INC because of the complacent Modi worship you mentioned. It may play in states like UP or Bihar where margins of victory are massive, but not in states where an election can be changed by 1,000 votes.
Edit: thanks for the negative votes Desis on HN. This is why Paharis prevent non-Paharis from getting residency in our state - https://himachal.nic.in/WriteReadData/l892s/13_l892s/3618435...
It doesn’t hurt reminding people though. It is not like they have repented.
True. Its laughable that people think this is going to change anything. Even the top software professionals I know voted for him because he "protected" hindus.
They openly say he showed muslims their place. One guy who claimed he wasn't a modi supporter at first later just casually told, "the muslims started it first so they got back in full"
They openly say he showed muslims their place. One guy who claimed he wasn't a modi supporter at first later just casually told, "the muslims started it first so they got back in full"
There's nothing stopping someone reuploading it in the future, when it'll be far less likely to incur a DMCA.
Uh... I guess.
That just seems like a super charitable 4D chess interpretation of capitulating to despotic censorship.
That just seems like a super charitable 4D chess interpretation of capitulating to despotic censorship.
They didn't capitulate to anything. They published the documentary.
> super charitable 4D chess interpretation of censorship.
Made me think of Mary Poppins https://youtu.be/1Pu1adxqUAg
Made me think of Mary Poppins https://youtu.be/1Pu1adxqUAg
It would be a brilliant move if you could actually watch the documentary on BBC from anywhere in the world, but it's restricted to UK only.
I watched both parts. Would highly recommend. I never understood how terrifying the riots in 2018 were (listening on the bbc world service) until the British Muslim gentlemen in the doc. describe the checkpoint incident in gujarat. Frankly terrifying
A wikipedia entry with some background for those wondering what all this is about [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India:_The_Modi_Question
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India:_The_Modi_Question
> On 23 January 2023, a students' group Fraternity Movement at Hyderabad Central University organised the screening of the documentary inside the campus. On 24 January 2023, the Democratic Youth Federation of India screened it in various parts of Kerala.[19][20] DYFI described its decision to screen the documentary, stating, "Let people see the fascist face of the Sangh Parivar outfits. We will go ahead with the plan and more screenings will be done at other places also in the coming days." The Indian Youth Congress said that it too would screen the documentary in Kerala.[21] The Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union (JNUSU) also decided to screen the documentary: electricity and internet access to the room where the screening was to take place were cut by university authorities, leading to students streaming the documentary on their cell phones.[4][22] After students at Jamia Millia University planned a screening, at least a dozen students were arrested, and the university entrances blocked.
It’s nice to read that the spirit of criticism and science is still alive somewhere
It’s nice to read that the spirit of criticism and science is still alive somewhere
Might be wrong, but if you combine India’s population with the percentage of the population that’s culturally intolerant, they’re ranked the highest in the world:
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/asia/story/india-among-world...
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencie...
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/asia/story/india-among-world...
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencie...
The torrent file we are looking for is https://archive.org/download/narendra-modi-bbc-documentary/n... the mp4 is https://archive.org/download/narendra-modi-bbc-documentary/R...
Still available (for now) in the UK via https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0dkb2kx/india-the-mod...
yt-dlp can grab the .mp4 from that easily.
Hopefully it will be available for streaming on iPlayer for the "11 months" stated on the page, unless there is something very badly wrong in the UK.
There is a trade deal pending with India that is supposed to help undo the damage done by Brexit (it won't), but even the Conservatives wouldn't bend over that far to try and save face.
There is a trade deal pending with India that is supposed to help undo the damage done by Brexit (it won't), but even the Conservatives wouldn't bend over that far to try and save face.
“Forty-nine percent of Indian Americans favorably rate Modi’s performance thus far (35 percent strongly approve and 13 percent approve). On the opposite end of the spectrum, 22 percent strongly disapprove of Modi’s performance and 9 percent disapprove.”
https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/02/09/how-do-indian-ameri...
https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/02/09/how-do-indian-ameri...
Pew says among Hindus in the US, Democrats outnumber Republicans almost 5 to 1: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu...
It's interesting how people can compartmentalize their right-wing nationalism
It's interesting how people can compartmentalize their right-wing nationalism
There's no such thing as nationalism without compartmentalization; by definition somebody who is a nationalist considers one nation's interests above another.
When a nationalist from India comes to America for economic reasons, why would they fall in with American nationalists? They're an Indian nationalist, not an American nationalist. American nationalism is contrary to the interests of an Indian nationalist living in America.
I think the mistake that might make this surprising is if you assume somebody votes Democratic because they oppose nationalism categorically. But it's easy for an Indian nationalist to oppose American nationalism specifically and not nationalism generally.
When a nationalist from India comes to America for economic reasons, why would they fall in with American nationalists? They're an Indian nationalist, not an American nationalist. American nationalism is contrary to the interests of an Indian nationalist living in America.
I think the mistake that might make this surprising is if you assume somebody votes Democratic because they oppose nationalism categorically. But it's easy for an Indian nationalist to oppose American nationalism specifically and not nationalism generally.
>There's no such thing as nationalism without compartmentalization; by definition somebody who is a nationalist considers one nation's interests above another.
Actually I don't think this is necessarily true. In the West you sometimes see nationalist parties from different countries finding some common ground, e.g. some right-wingers in the US have expressed admiration for Orbán's government in Hungary.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44926417
There's nothing inherently incompatible with the statement "American government should focus on solving problems for American citizens" and the statement "Indian government should focus on solving problems for Indian citizens"
Actually I don't think this is necessarily true. In the West you sometimes see nationalist parties from different countries finding some common ground, e.g. some right-wingers in the US have expressed admiration for Orbán's government in Hungary.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44926417
There's nothing inherently incompatible with the statement "American government should focus on solving problems for American citizens" and the statement "Indian government should focus on solving problems for Indian citizens"
Why would you assume that Indians who emigrated are nationalists at all?
And "hating Muslims" is surely something Hindu nationalists and Christian nationalists agree on. Finally "American Nationalists" doesn't even make sense, it's a tautology since 1789 or the War of 1812. The US right wing is (partly) Christian Nationalisy. Nationalism means excluding someone from a nation based on religious, ethnic, or other basis. It's trying to make the nation for Hindus or Christians or the local population or whatever. "Indian nationalism" mean separating from the British. Muslims and Hindus are both Indians.
And "hating Muslims" is surely something Hindu nationalists and Christian nationalists agree on. Finally "American Nationalists" doesn't even make sense, it's a tautology since 1789 or the War of 1812. The US right wing is (partly) Christian Nationalisy. Nationalism means excluding someone from a nation based on religious, ethnic, or other basis. It's trying to make the nation for Hindus or Christians or the local population or whatever. "Indian nationalism" mean separating from the British. Muslims and Hindus are both Indians.
> Why would you assume that Indians who emigrated are nationalists at all?
I don't assume all of them are, nor did I suggest it. I know that many of them are, because that's what opinion polling reveals.
American nationalists and Indian nationalists may have some commonalities, like hating Muslims, but American nationalists have no love for Hindus either so it would be weird for Indian nationalists living in America to cozy up with American nationalists.
I don't assume all of them are, nor did I suggest it. I know that many of them are, because that's what opinion polling reveals.
American nationalists and Indian nationalists may have some commonalities, like hating Muslims, but American nationalists have no love for Hindus either so it would be weird for Indian nationalists living in America to cozy up with American nationalists.
> It's interesting how people can compartmentalize their right-wing nationalism
Right wing is fundamentally self serving. So it shouldn't be surprising that they are conservatives when they are the majority, but liberals when they are minority.
Right wing is fundamentally self serving. So it shouldn't be surprising that they are conservatives when they are the majority, but liberals when they are minority.
The (inter)Net Interprets Censorship As Damage and Routes Around It
https://www.magnetdl.com/m/modi/
https://www.magnetdl.com/m/modi/
It's amazing Modi was able to fly so low under the radar internationally when he is such an illiberal nationalist, then suddenly he gets 2 big hits in 2 weeks with this and Adani.
I know this won't make him any less popular in India but nice to see at least people outside recognize how problematic he is for once.
I know this won't make him any less popular in India but nice to see at least people outside recognize how problematic he is for once.
You probably weren't reading the news back in 2014 but he has had hit pieces from the Economist and Time and many other western outlets from before he was first elected. It has been a steady flow ever since then but this is probably the biggest jump from 8-9 years ago.
Modi was banned from traveling to US and UK due to his involvement in the 2002 riots. Once he became the PM, the bans were uplifted.
If anything, the documentary should make him more popular in India. The modi supporters support him because of his role in the riots, not despite it. The documentary might help him become popular amongst the youth who might not be aware of his past.
I am surprised that the govt even tried to ban it in India. This documentary is not even aimed at the Indian population, it's meant for the western population. Banning it in India only creates streisand effect for the rest of the world through posts like this one.
If anything, the documentary should make him more popular in India. The modi supporters support him because of his role in the riots, not despite it. The documentary might help him become popular amongst the youth who might not be aware of his past.
I am surprised that the govt even tried to ban it in India. This documentary is not even aimed at the Indian population, it's meant for the western population. Banning it in India only creates streisand effect for the rest of the world through posts like this one.
Last Week Tonight had a couple pieces on him as well a couple years ago.
[deleted]
Simple, because they have a big neighbor. Modi would be hailed as a great man and the future leader of Asia regardless of his competence and political views. It is the same reason why Vietnam is now suddenly the most favored country for outsourcing manufacturing despite having the exact same policies and politics as their neighbor.
Of course. This is a nearly fake story being printed by a bunch of outlets who would also send a DMCA to archive.org for posting a documentary that they did on Modi.
The reason I say nearly fake is that Indians were using archive.org to access the documentary, and that was a good thing. But it's copyright that's suppressing information that is unfavorable to India's current administration. Absolutely pointlessly, by the way, as it was ultimately produced by the British license/tax payer.
edit: happy there's a fake story being whipped up about BJP, hopefully that means they're feeling real political pressure on some level.
The reason I say nearly fake is that Indians were using archive.org to access the documentary, and that was a good thing. But it's copyright that's suppressing information that is unfavorable to India's current administration. Absolutely pointlessly, by the way, as it was ultimately produced by the British license/tax payer.
edit: happy there's a fake story being whipped up about BJP, hopefully that means they're feeling real political pressure on some level.
But they aren't suppressing it for copyright reasons. According to the administration, they're removing it because it "reflected a colonial mindset" and supposedly lacks objectivity. If this was just a copyright problem, people wouldn't be getting arrested[0] and having rocks thrown at them[1] for screening legally-obtained copies.
[0] https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/students-deta...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-64371327
[0] https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/students-deta...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-64371327
You’re conflating two things. The BBC is indeed taking it down for copyright reasons. The Indian government is censoring it for political reasons. This post was about the former.
India also banned in 2015 from BBC
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/05/asia/bbc-india-documentar...
but it is on Amazon Prime
search j5oydmf for more info, won't link it in case there is some ignorant law
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/05/asia/bbc-india-documentar...
but it is on Amazon Prime
search j5oydmf for more info, won't link it in case there is some ignorant law
@dang why did this get demoted off the front page? You claim it's a dupe, but this is a lie. No other posts discussing this are on the front page.
Very strange use of "dupe".
I think the link provided is notable just due to the fact that the BBC overextended themselves and wasted taxpayer dollars on using DMCA against the Internet Archive - something outside of their responsibility (why is the BBC going above and beyond for censorship?), and possibly not even violated any copyright 'DMCA'.
This link provides clarity that the request actually came from the BBC, for whatever reason, not the Indian government. And that's probably why this discussion in the short time it was up generated more comments than the others all combined from a few days ago...
I think the link provided is notable just due to the fact that the BBC overextended themselves and wasted taxpayer dollars on using DMCA against the Internet Archive - something outside of their responsibility (why is the BBC going above and beyond for censorship?), and possibly not even violated any copyright 'DMCA'.
This link provides clarity that the request actually came from the BBC, for whatever reason, not the Indian government. And that's probably why this discussion in the short time it was up generated more comments than the others all combined from a few days ago...
[deleted]
https://peertube.su/w/f15x5ghHXocFUL1bJk21Af
part 1 on peertube. lets see stupid DMCA take this one down
part 1 on peertube. lets see stupid DMCA take this one down
Thamk you for sharing this!
@dang have you had a chance to review the dupe flag? This was on the top of the front page then got flagged, and given the subject matter it smells of intentional obfuscation.
Really wish if HN flags a link as duplicate the top comment would be an automatic comment that cites what the duplicate was. As is, I see no duplicates:
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=BBC%20Modi%20Documentary%20Rem...
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=BBC%20Modi%20Documentary%20Rem...
Wow. Ok then, I NEED to see this documentary. Anything that is not illegal on its face that the government wants to remove from the internet is something we should ALL take a very close look at.
I am not a fan of Modi and I don’t want him to get re-elected. He is an autocrat and favors a select few. His party is as corrupt as any other party.
But I suspect the timing of this ? Why now, when this happened so long ago. ( before he got elected twice in a row ?)
Also, How many know that Modi was conferred the highest civilian award by Saudi Arabia ! Even UAE and Bahrain gave their highest civilian awards !
A movie takes time to produce? A documentary needs space to find obbjective evidence?
Cumulative impact increases importance? Allying with authoritarian dictators raises new alarm?
Why now might be as simple as there was no high profile director interested in the topic before. Because Modi has been massing more power for himself and BJP, their history has become more interesting for journalists, or “how we ended up here.”
Going by the feedback in this thread, there's nothing new in the documentary. Gulf states are probably just playing diplomacy given the fact that Modi was never convicted by any court.
For people who prefer reading articles to watching documentaries, here's a Wired article from 2020:
"The Rise of a Hindu Vigilante in the Age of WhatsApp and Modi"
https://www.wired.com/story/indias-frightening-descent-socia...
I assume the topic is fairly similar (I haven't watched the documentary)
"The Rise of a Hindu Vigilante in the Age of WhatsApp and Modi"
https://www.wired.com/story/indias-frightening-descent-socia...
I assume the topic is fairly similar (I haven't watched the documentary)
IANAL. It seems strange to me that the DMCA can be used to get a link to offending material removed.
The copyright holder has zero right to the link, and I should be free to say, sing, or write it, and distribute that work.
Says little ol' me.
What about a link to a link to copyrighted material? Is tinyurl legally responsible?
The copyright holder has zero right to the link, and I should be free to say, sing, or write it, and distribute that work.
Says little ol' me.
What about a link to a link to copyrighted material? Is tinyurl legally responsible?
It's getting used because it's the only thing you can do to force a platform to comply. No matter if right or wrong a DCMA will make it go away in the short term.
Yes, unless they comply with the takedown/safe harbor provisions in the DMCA. https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explai...
Gotta love that they can get something removed that's not copyrightable.
I did have this happen to me once when I linked to a non-infringing page that had a link to an infringing page. It was a black mark on my record and I guess it was my fault for not verifying that none of the pages linked to from the page I linked to had any infringing content.
What about a page that links to a page that links to a page with infringing content? :)
I did have this happen to me once when I linked to a non-infringing page that had a link to an infringing page. It was a black mark on my record and I guess it was my fault for not verifying that none of the pages linked to from the page I linked to had any infringing content.
What about a page that links to a page that links to a page with infringing content? :)
Streisand effect.
https://magnetdl.unblockit.ink/i/india-the-modi-question/se/...
Proxy link needed for people behind ISPs blocking certain sites, like the bar I'm writing this from.
https://magnetdl.unblockit.ink/i/india-the-modi-question/se/...
Proxy link needed for people behind ISPs blocking certain sites, like the bar I'm writing this from.
What happened in Kashmir was disgusting. I had no idea this was going on. Thank you Streisand Effect.
I am from India. Though I am not a fan (or hater) of Modi, he has been scrutinized on these accusations by the Supreme Court of India. As far as I am concerned that settles the matter. I should also add that Modi was given a clean chit years before he became Prime Minister of India. I would rather trust the Supreme court of India than the agenda of media produced by anyone, especially foreign media.
This is why we need a decentralised censorship-free protocol for archiving the internet.
Internet Archive takes down upload of BBC’s Modi documentary - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34504085 - Jan 2023 (66 comments)
India invokes emergency laws to ban BBC Modi documentary - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34511831 - Jan 2023 (31 comments)
India invokes emergency laws to ban BBC Modi documentary - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34511831 - Jan 2023 (31 comments)
Good. Fuck censorship. Pretty sure savy VPN users in India have already torrented this and spread it everywhere.
Unfortunately majority of people in India are not that tech savvy and not aware of it
Textual explanation of what’s going on:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/01/23/indias-blocking-bbc-docu...
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/01/23/indias-blocking-bbc-docu...
Also available in Bilibili:
- https://www.bilibili.tv/en/video/2041149094
it’s funny how Bilibili who listed on NASDAQ has so many copyrighted video…
- https://www.bilibili.tv/en/video/2041149094
it’s funny how Bilibili who listed on NASDAQ has so many copyrighted video…
I would have never even known about this documentary if I hadn’t heard about all the efforts to censor it.
Streisand Effect in full display.
Streisand Effect in full display.
So not pressure from India but from the BBC. I thought their content was free to broadcast as it was paid for by taxes?
It is “free” to watch for UK citizens paying for the BBC via an optional TV licence. I don’t watch live TV and don’t pay for a TV licence so I cannot watch BBC programming broadcast live (or any live TV, including non-BBC) or on iPlayer (the BBC catch-up/streaming service for UK).
The BBC also licenses their content for audiences in different countries, and streaming services. The BBC own the copyright to the programming they produce and sell the rights to it.
bbc.com is the commercial arm of the BBC.
The BBC also licenses their content for audiences in different countries, and streaming services. The BBC own the copyright to the programming they produce and sell the rights to it.
bbc.com is the commercial arm of the BBC.
I don't think it's too much of a leap to imagine the DMCA takedown requests might be coming from the Indian government rather than the BBC.
But they specifically say it comes from the BBC. I don't think archive.org would lie about this. And yes like the other reply says it must come from the copyright holder.
It's a bit strange though because DMCA doesn't even apply to the UK or India.
It's a bit strange though because DMCA doesn't even apply to the UK or India.
I think it's weird that BBC is so defensive about this, but DMCA takedown requests are only supposed to come from the copyright holder or someone they authorize
So why is this a blog post instead of the IA proactively publishing all DMCA requests?
Found a copy on bittorrent already - why did they bother.
Here is another example of Elon's love for free speech. [1]
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-leaked-internal-mess...
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-leaked-internal-mess...
I torrented it. Problem solved.
reactspa(2)
https://www.firstpost.com/world/pack-of-lies-bbcs-hitjob-on-...
The documentary relies on Jack Straw who lied about WMDs in Iraq. I am sure he is correct now /s
Also compare and contrast with censorship and removal of stories on Hunter Biden.
The documentary relies on Jack Straw who lied about WMDs in Iraq. I am sure he is correct now /s
Also compare and contrast with censorship and removal of stories on Hunter Biden.
These knee-jerk defenders seem to forget that the West bans entire channels like RT and Al Jazeera.
I remember when the Second Gulf War started in 2003, Al Jazeera was removed from cable channels. They were forced to start a completely new organization, called "Al Jazeera America" to 'comply' with local laws. So much for freedom of speech, eh?
And don't even get me started on RT. Edit: HN "discussions" of RT getting banned: https://ibb.co/VtyBSCn
I remember when the Second Gulf War started in 2003, Al Jazeera was removed from cable channels. They were forced to start a completely new organization, called "Al Jazeera America" to 'comply' with local laws. So much for freedom of speech, eh?
And don't even get me started on RT. Edit: HN "discussions" of RT getting banned: https://ibb.co/VtyBSCn
Censorship is bad regardless where it happens. The fact RT got kicked out in Europe is as bad a document critical to Modi gets kicked out in India. One can be unhappy in both cases.
Please show me the HN outrage when that happened? Here's a refresher, in case your memory is weak: https://ibb.co/VtyBSCn
Nobody is getting arrested for watching RT by other means, it's just not broadcast.
Whataboutism - the BJP and their ties to the RSS is well documented and known.
Nobody said otherwise.
BBC and their racism and racist roots are well known.
BBC and their racism and racist roots are well known.
You’re merely doubling down on the whataboutism.
You keep using that word, "whataboutism". It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Pointing out BBC's racist bias is not "whataboutism".
Western countries have no problems with banning entire channels like RT and Al Jazeera, but God forbid that a biased piece of shit "documentary" be banned from a propaganda outlet; then the heaven is falling!!
Pointing out BBC's racist bias is not "whataboutism".
Western countries have no problems with banning entire channels like RT and Al Jazeera, but God forbid that a biased piece of shit "documentary" be banned from a propaganda outlet; then the heaven is falling!!
You’re doing nothing but distracting from the discussion, as others are attempting to do. But some of us aren’t falling for it.
Please remember that the BBC isn't state media because [semantics].
Do elected officials in the UK government tell the BBC what to say?
"Government" is more than elected officials. Defining the BBC to be outside of government is British semantics.
The BBC operates independently of the government. That is a fact.
RT, for example, takes direction directly from the Kremlin and is nothing more than a propaganda hose.
RT, for example, takes direction directly from the Kremlin and is nothing more than a propaganda hose.
The BBC is part of the government. Claiming otherwise relies on semantics about which parts of a government are called "the government".
Liberals push their propogand and others do theirs. Centeraists and free speach lovers are at loss
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34512758
Looks like BBC wants to keep itself in control and not authorise unwarranted copies of the video around Internet.