• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      515 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        335 months ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Reuters had a choice to reword the article (like some other media houses in OP’s link have done) or retract the article. they have chosen to do the latter.

          the core difference is that choice. had the court deemed that the article should have been taken down, Reuters wouldn’t have even had that choice.

          getting mad at the court in this case is akin to getting mad at the car that a drunk driver drove into a house. sure, it has been the proximal instrument of destruction, but it wasn’t the one who veered off the road.

          blame the leeching lawyers here.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            7
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I think people mad at Reuters don’t realize that they’re intentionally invoking the Streisand Effect in this case. Otherwise, today, I wouldn’t have heard anything about:

            confirmed scammer Rajat Khare covering up his scammy ways

      • Corgana
        link
        fedilink
        English
        185 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        45 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        25 months 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.

    • prole
      link
      fedilink
      English
      205 months ago

      I was thinking the same thing, but then I saw “globally”. They probably could have just taken it down in India, right?

    • Zagorath
      link
      fedilink
      English
      125 months ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        245 months ago

        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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    975 months 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. 🤷

  • FlumPHP
    link
    English
    555 months ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25 months 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.

    • Corgana
      link
      fedilink
      English
      635 months ago

      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
        link
        English
        55 months 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.

  • Black Skinned Jew
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -1
    edit-2
    5 months ago

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