The UK's Online Safety Act is *not* about protecting children. That's just what politicians say to push unpopular measures through, "think of the children" etc. All major UK ISPs already had technical measures in place to allow parents to restrict children's access to unsuitable websites.
I am no fan of Wikipedia and their bias (see what co-founder Larry Sanger has to say), but they were morally right to challenge this. For further background reading:
I just passed the 10,000 mark count for Wikipedia articles. I love Wikipedia, but aside from installing links between articles I stay away from articles on current events and advise everyone to do the same.
The UK's Online Safety Act is *not* about protecting children. That's just what politicians say to push unpopular measures through, "think of the children" etc. All major UK ISPs already had technical measures in place to allow parents to restrict children's access to unsuitable websites.
I am no fan of Wikipedia and their bias (see what co-founder Larry Sanger has to say), but they were morally right to challenge this. For further background reading:
https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/blog/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-online-safety-bill/
I do agree that there does need to be some transparency but the Online Safety Act is not it.
Thanks - we’ll look more closely at the provisions of the OSA in question. But good point and thanks for flagging.
Correct, the OSA is intended to increase government censorship of many topics that have nothing to do with children.
You lost me at #9. Don’t pretend the Online Safety Act is about protecting children.
I just passed the 10,000 mark count for Wikipedia articles. I love Wikipedia, but aside from installing links between articles I stay away from articles on current events and advise everyone to do the same.