@schizoidman@lemmy.zip to Privacy@lemmy.mlEnglish • 9 days agoWikipedia loses UK Safety Act challenge, worries it will have to verify user IDsarstechnica.comexternal-linkmessage-square71fedilinkarrow-up1440arrow-down11 cross-posted to: europe@feddit.org
arrow-up1439arrow-down1external-linkWikipedia loses UK Safety Act challenge, worries it will have to verify user IDsarstechnica.com@schizoidman@lemmy.zip to Privacy@lemmy.mlEnglish • 9 days agomessage-square71fedilink cross-posted to: europe@feddit.org
minus-square@InFerNo@lemmy.mllinkfedilink9•8 days agoWikipedia will never block the UK because they value accessible information, however obstructed it may be, more.
minus-square@geneva_convenience@lemmy.mllinkfedilink5•7 days agoYou mean Wikipedia will bow down to a Western government and obey their every command? Do you think Wikipedia would make special exceptions for China or Russia?
minus-square@InFerNo@lemmy.mllinkfedilink0•7 days agoRetaining truthful information with obstructed access is not the same as offering redacted or altered information to a specific region.
minus-square@geneva_convenience@lemmy.mllinkfedilink3•7 days agoThe UK is demanding that Wikipedia redacts information for users which refuse to identify themselves, and users under 18. It’s far worse than simply not showing certain articles.
Wikipedia will never block the UK because they value accessible information, however obstructed it may be, more.
You mean Wikipedia will bow down to a Western government and obey their every command?
Do you think Wikipedia would make special exceptions for China or Russia?
Retaining truthful information with obstructed access is not the same as offering redacted or altered information to a specific region.
The UK is demanding that Wikipedia redacts information for users which refuse to identify themselves, and users under 18. It’s far worse than simply not showing certain articles.