Censorship of Wikipedia by governments has occurred widely in countries including (but not limited to) China, Iran, Myanmar, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and Venezuela. Some instances are examples of widespread Internet censorship in general that includes Wikipedia content. Others are indicative of measures to prevent the viewing of specific content deemed offensive. The duration of different blocks has varied from hours to years.
When the politician is part of the government, it is the government’s responsibility.
And considering that most democracies are currently seeing a clear shift towards fascism, they do drift towards dictatorships.
Saying it’s it’s moronic doesn’t make your argument smarter.
No, it is not. Unless the candidate brought forth a resolution to officially change the article by the government itself. Editing Wikipedia articles is not illegal so I’m not sure what you expect the government to do here. Making it illegal is certainly the move of a dictatorship though.
Thanks for further proving my point.
You’re not talking about governments but about laws. People in the government engage the responsibility of the government.
I’m talking about policy, which is how governments work. A lone politician editing a wikipedia article is not the work of the government.
So according to you, if members of the government agree to do something illegal or at least that shouldn’t be allowed, without anything opposing them and let’s say, the president covering for them, this is not the responsibility of the government because it’s not a policy?
Going further, if all the government agrees to do something unofficially, without writing it down as a policy, then it is not the responsibility of the government.
So basically they can do anything they want, as long as it’s not official, and it will never change the status of democracy of the government. A country like Turkiye then would be a perfect democracy since all their dictatorship-like actions tend to stay supposedly unofficial.
My guy… If you seriously cannot see the difference in your false equivalence of “one guy that’s part of the government doing something” and “the entire government doing it”, then I’m truly hoping you’re not a voter. Speaking of moronic takes…
I never said it was equivalent, just pointing at the problem with your “logic”.
You are too focused on your pathetic ad hominems to be able to read.
Have a good day
So you’re using two completely different scenarios in a comparison and think MY logic is flawed? JFC…
Wow. You really can only see in extremes, that’s fascinating. Or you’re a bad troll.
I was extrapolating on your logic to point out its limits. That’s a pretty basic thing.
Go find other people to fight online, this is getting pathetic.