Reuters has taken down -- globally -- an important hacking-for-profit investigation that included details about an Indian hacking entrepreneur -- because he got a court in that country to say so.
This is a huge danger to free speech and serious journalism.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-is-killing-all-these-stories-about-rajat-khare-controversial-tech-mogul
Reuters deserved praise for its initial investigation. It deserves the opposite now.
(The New Yorker is apparently one of the few publications that hasn't bowed to the pressure.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-crime/a-confession-exposes-indias-secret-hacking-industry
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.
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.
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.