this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2023
400 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

72263 readers
2911 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 113 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Get mad at the court that forced them to take the story down not at Reuters.

[–] ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world 48 points 2 years ago (1 children)

just a minor clarification. the court did not order the article to he taken down. the court just said that the article constitutes defamation.

it was Reuter's decision to therefore take down the article. in OP's first link, there's info of other media houses that have also pulled such stories.

blame the scummy lawyers protecting the scumbag and his predatory behaviour.

[–] Vash63@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What's the difference between the court saying it's defamation, and thus illegal to publish and worthy of awarding damages, and ordering it taken down? Seems like splitting hairs.

[–] harry_balzac@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Reuters could have geoblocked the article.

[–] Corgana@startrek.website 16 points 2 years ago

I assume, stuck between a rock and a hard place, they decided that compromising with censorship was not an option, while probably hoping that the headline "Reuters removes article" would have somewhat of a striesand effect. If that was the case it seems to have worked as we're here talking about it.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

Maybe, I guess it depends on the feasibility of doing that quickly. If they need to do a lot of setup for it then there might not be time

[–] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

I'd be willing to bet it has less to do with the article not being available in India and that it is available at all. Let's be honest, geoblocking is a joke, especially for a news outlet. Therefore, if Reuters wants to do business in India, one of the world's largest markets, they have to take it down everywhere. Now, if I ran a news service that wrote an article they didn't like and since I'm not doing business in India, I would have the power to tell them to go pound sand. Assuming they didn't decide to go the route of burying me in legal fees here in America by hiring American lawyers to do so, that is.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Does Reuters actually operate in India? What’s stopping them just ignoring a blatantly immoral ruling?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They operate pretty literally everywhere.

But yeah, appeasing the totalitarian demands of the fascist Modi government and its pet courts is not the way to go.

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago

Yes, they do.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 88 points 2 years ago

Gosh, it sure would be a shame if this article about confirmed scammer Rajat Khare covering up his scammy ways were shared repeatedly all over the internet. 🤷

[–] flumph@programming.dev 49 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Reuters has temporarily removed the article “How an Indian startup hacked the world” to comply with a preliminary court order issued on Dec. 4, 2023, in a district court in New Delhi, India.

Reuters stands by its reporting and plans to appeal the decision.

The article, published Nov. 16, 2023, was based on interviews with hundreds of people, thousands of documents, and research from several cybersecurity firms.

The order was issued amid a pending lawsuit brought against Reuters in November 2022. As set forth in its court filings, Reuters disputes those claims.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 points 2 years ago

This isn't about appealing though. This is about jurisdiction. An Indian Court has no jurisdiction outside of India, and for that court to suggest otherwise is a significant overreach. So while they should absolutely appeal this up the wazoo, in every other country, the correct answer is to ignore it. And they should tell the Indian court that they will follow Indian law and Indian judgments inside of India but their operations in other nations are not subject to Indian law any more than their operations in India are subject to American law.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 46 points 2 years ago (1 children)

stop bowing down to fascism everybody

[–] Corgana@startrek.website 57 points 2 years ago (1 children)

My gut says that this is probably not appeasement but a subtle rebellious act. They could have edited the article or geoblocked it just in India, but instead they removed it altogether, adding to the story and ultimatley bringing even more attention to it.

[–] Deebster@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago

I'd like to believe this is canny use of the Streisand Effect, but in a company as big as Reuters it's more likely to be lawyers.

[–] raynethackery@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is there an archive link of the article?

[–] crypticthree@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Alright scambaiters go to work

[–] BlackSkinnedJew@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

There are some things what MasterCard can't buy, for everything else exist Money.