• explodicle@local106.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yep! Sucks when it’s not our country, huh? If they want to do business in India, then they have to comply with Indian court orders.

    • MadhuGururajan@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      Indian courts are fellating the current govt. hard so complying with their orders is akin to giving their govt. a free pass to suppress dissent and arrest civilians under their notorious UAPA. They use their “enforcement directorate”(shortened to ED) as whips to keep people in line. ED and courts are the lapdog of their government.

    • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      Sounds like something a geoblock could have dealt with, but they likely weren’t ready to put it in place so this was the easiest solution to be in compliance.

        • Xanvial@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yeah, it’s better than no news, right? Of course the best is not removing it, the next best is only remove it on country that forbid it

        • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I’ve never said that, I’ve said that it would be a better option than pulling out the article worldwide. A geoblock would ensure the article remains available outside of India, and could be retrieved somewhat trivially through a VPN or a proxy, making Reuters in compliance of the court order, which only applies within India’s border. It’s definitely better than not complying, which would lead to Reuters office in India being shut down and risking some of their employees going to jail for not respecting a court order.

          Reuters is appealing the decision, but for now they have to comply.