TurboLagWikipedia may have to impose quota on number of UK users to comply with Online Safety Act
Gradually_AdjustingFucking insane
Just FYI, it’s considered poor form to post a paywalled article with no way of bypassing it.
Trapped In AmericaHmm. It does sound like Wikipedia’s concerns are unlikely to come to fruition.
I still buy the odd paper if I’m working away from home.
These paywalls or “pay for no tracking” wankers make it easy to decide what papers not to buy.
Not that it really matters a flying fuck when print membership is so king faster than the Oceangate grain of sub. It’s satisfying though.
Sorry, I didn’t realise it was paywalled. It didn’t prompt me to pay when I opened it. It’s not a source I usually use, but I couldn’t find an alternative unless from much less reputable sites.
th3dogcowReader view on most browsers will bypass articles like this. It worked for me.
I’m not a fan of the laws regardless, but if we pretend for a second they’re justified, it’s worth considering how they should work in a case like Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has quite strong protections against problem content already, and that’s because it has a shared global view of content with effective moderation tools and a wide moderator base that respects the rules. That should reality should be taken into account in the governments new rules. On the other hand, anyone who understands how this all works was already against this stuff if law, so I guess they didn’t get any useful feedback internally
If Wikipedia can’t fully comply and has to resort to blocking, how an small one-man platform is supposed to do it?
Yeah, exactly, block all the UK and move on.
I think the law would only apply above a certain number of monthly users, so small platforms are safe from it for now.