General > General Technical Chat
UK internet censoring
Bryn:
Here I am thinking that the new law would be a good thing (even by giving the likes of Facebook and Twitter a lesson) but like all laws, there's always one issue with it.
So if Wikipedia ever gets banned here in the UK, just for the sake of the kids, then I'll have no hope for humanity anymore (and it means I have to rely on Google for every little lookup I have to conduct, and I personally don't want that). Not only that, I've been a member and contributor to Wikipedia for almost twenty years so that would be an even bigger loss to me...
voltsandjolts:
--- Quote from: Someone on July 07, 2023, 11:26:55 pm ---
--- Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 07, 2023, 08:02:09 pm ---In my view, young children are viewing armful content online and it is causing damage. Societal damage.
--- End quote ---
Sure, and some are playing in the road.
BAN AUTOMOBILES*
--- End quote ---
Thanks, that's great argument for more regulation. The plethora of vehicle safety regulations has no doubt saved many childrens lives or reduced the trauma they are subjected to in road accidents. Both in and out of the vehicle. In Australia in 2018, 60% of child deaths on the road network were not children playing on the road, but children riding in the vehicle, which is probably typical.
RoGeorge:
Wikipedia is not that innocent as people use to think.
Got a strong political bias in the last couple decades.
First, I've bumped into a research paper 10 years ago, or so, where the researchers made bots to automatically create Wikipedia pages for whatever they thought it didn't have enough representation on Wikipedia. It was mostly feminism, and the pages were very brief (I think the term is a Wikipedia stab article/page, but I'm not very sure). Whatever that is called, it was SJW vandalism.
Then, there were some complains about the references that can only be from mainstream media, which already has a strong bias, and some other internal complaints from the editors.
Not to say last year the politicization went so far that an article about "The Alley of Angels" was deleted from Wikipedia. That page was about a shrine and in the memory of killed children in Donbass/Ukraine, allegedly by the Ukraine gov/army, but I'm not familiar with that story so I might have misunderstood the events. My understanding was that that shrine was about events before the Russian invasion in Donbass, and was (or could have been) used as a justification by Russia. Again, I don't know for sure, that is what I remember from when I've seen on a asocial media post (for the first time) about the deletion of Wikipedia pages.
What I know for sure (because I've personally checked the page back then), is that the page was nowhere to be found in the online (latest) version of Wikipedia, while the deleted page was still present in the archived versions of Wikipedia.
(By the way, Wikipedia can be legally downloaded and accessed offline, if you have the space and the will to store a local copy. There are many versions at different timestamps, some only a few hundreds of MB, some up to many TB if you want the newest with included editing history).
For science/engineering articles, the political bias might not be that obvious. For science articles I'm bothered mostly by the fact that Wikipedia became too detailed. Wikipedia pages these days look more like a reference book, with included graduate math, than like an encyclopedia.
I would prefer Wikipedia to emphasize on the bird eye view and on the understanding of the principles and ideas in science and technology. Some pages looks like a formula cheat-sheet. I've even seen pages with math proofs, or with code examples in specific languages (for algorithms).
About age restrictions, either online or AFK, I think they are necessary.
About individual digital ID's and online surveillance, I'm totally against.
Someone:
--- Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 08, 2023, 07:16:18 am ---
--- Quote from: Someone on July 07, 2023, 11:26:55 pm ---
--- Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 07, 2023, 08:02:09 pm ---In my view, young children are viewing armful content online and it is causing damage. Societal damage.
--- End quote ---
Sure, and some are playing in the road.
BAN AUTOMOBILES*
--- End quote ---
Thanks, that's great argument for more regulation. The plethora of vehicle safety regulations has no doubt saved many childrens lives or reduced the trauma they are subjected to in road accidents. Both in and out of the vehicle. In Australia in 2018, 60% of child deaths on the road network were not children playing on the road, but children riding in the vehicle, which is probably typical.
--- End quote ---
The road is still not a place for children to play unattended, there are other places for that. Uncontrolled access to the internet is something which should be continued, but at the same time specific places for children are made available.
Road vs Park
Or perhaps we should further restrict motor vehicle velocities and the danger they pose to the point they are benign threats to all? Plainly ridiculous. As would be filtering the internet down to a lowest common denominator acceptable to "all" fairyland.
AVGresponding:
They could do more social good by banning gambling apps for smartphones.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version