When one votes in this so-called "democracy", one votes for a representative to represent 'you and thousands of others' on thousands of decisions.
And even then, if both parties want to do something, as in this case, there is nowhere to go.
This is force. If you can't say 'no', this is immoral, coercive force, even if the person or party doing the forcing says it isn't.
And no, the forcer (government) won't give back freedoms (the right to privacy) that it takes away.
In the end, the only moral, respectful and free way to proceed, without force, ie where people opt in. Individuals would opt in/out to paying tax for wars/schools/online safety, etc.
"But it is impossible that everyone should be allowed to only opt in to the decisions they like!" .. is only the case because we think it is normal to endlessly abused by governments and because so many citizens are dependent on its handouts.
I never said or implied it was. If Wiki packed up and deserted the UK we'd have an actual measure of the opposition. At the moment we don't.
"When one votes in this so-called "democracy", one votes for a representative to represent 'you and thousands of others' on thousands of decisions."
I'm well aware of that. Also the argument that a politician when in government gets to see a broader picture than his or her constituency and thus may vote against its (narrower/sectional) wishes.
I'd also remind you of the perils of voting against the wishes of one's constituency. The famous case of the conservative Edmund Burke the Member for Bristol illustrates the point. He was summarily booted out at the following election for voting against the wishes of his voters.
If Wiki leaves it'll polarize the electorate, we'll then see what happens. If Wiki stays with some mushy compromise the issue won't be resolved.
At the moment democracy isn't working properly which allows vested and sectional interests to slip in and rule (and in this respect the UK's is arguably the worst).
The other point is nothing frightens government more than truly angry voters. Trouble is UK voters are so under the thumb of government they're frightened to show who is actually in charge in a democracy. De facto the gnomes and bureaucrats rule.
They are not, but they are central resource that the citizenry uses. If enough of the internet enters an embargo with the UK, they will probably capitulate because more and more of the citizenry will realize what is happening, be greatly inconvenienced, reduce the UK's GDP and complain. IMO I hope more big websites do block the UK.
The way this works is that the backlash would be directed at Wikipedia.
Your average citizen neither knows nor cares about the legislative landscape - they just know that the daily mail says Wikipedia hates the U.K. and is staffed by communists.
Can't they make it so that anyone from that geographical location is required to prove their identity and log in to view the articles? That seems like it'd be sufficient and sure I'd be annoyed at Wikipedia but if they linked to the law I feel like people would get it.
Of course now no one needs to visit Wikipedia because Google has already scraped them with AI so you can just see the maybe accurate summary. Seems risky, as if you should have to log in to use Google since the AI might have forbidden information.
If Wiki had the guts it'd leave the UK. Nothing will happen unless there's a backlash from the citizenry.
Wiki isn't the citizenry.
And no one voted for this.
When one votes in this so-called "democracy", one votes for a representative to represent 'you and thousands of others' on thousands of decisions.
And even then, if both parties want to do something, as in this case, there is nowhere to go.
This is force. If you can't say 'no', this is immoral, coercive force, even if the person or party doing the forcing says it isn't.
And no, the forcer (government) won't give back freedoms (the right to privacy) that it takes away.
In the end, the only moral, respectful and free way to proceed, without force, ie where people opt in. Individuals would opt in/out to paying tax for wars/schools/online safety, etc.
"But it is impossible that everyone should be allowed to only opt in to the decisions they like!" .. is only the case because we think it is normal to endlessly abused by governments and because so many citizens are dependent on its handouts.
"Wiki isn't the citizenry."
I never said or implied it was. If Wiki packed up and deserted the UK we'd have an actual measure of the opposition. At the moment we don't.
"When one votes in this so-called "democracy", one votes for a representative to represent 'you and thousands of others' on thousands of decisions."
I'm well aware of that. Also the argument that a politician when in government gets to see a broader picture than his or her constituency and thus may vote against its (narrower/sectional) wishes.
I'd also remind you of the perils of voting against the wishes of one's constituency. The famous case of the conservative Edmund Burke the Member for Bristol illustrates the point. He was summarily booted out at the following election for voting against the wishes of his voters.
If Wiki leaves it'll polarize the electorate, we'll then see what happens. If Wiki stays with some mushy compromise the issue won't be resolved.
At the moment democracy isn't working properly which allows vested and sectional interests to slip in and rule (and in this respect the UK's is arguably the worst).
The other point is nothing frightens government more than truly angry voters. Trouble is UK voters are so under the thumb of government they're frightened to show who is actually in charge in a democracy. De facto the gnomes and bureaucrats rule.
They are not, but they are central resource that the citizenry uses. If enough of the internet enters an embargo with the UK, they will probably capitulate because more and more of the citizenry will realize what is happening, be greatly inconvenienced, reduce the UK's GDP and complain. IMO I hope more big websites do block the UK.
The libertarian fantasy where its possible to exist without the choices of others impacting you, doesn't work in the real world.
The way this works is that the backlash would be directed at Wikipedia.
Your average citizen neither knows nor cares about the legislative landscape - they just know that the daily mail says Wikipedia hates the U.K. and is staffed by communists.
Can't they make it so that anyone from that geographical location is required to prove their identity and log in to view the articles? That seems like it'd be sufficient and sure I'd be annoyed at Wikipedia but if they linked to the law I feel like people would get it.
Of course now no one needs to visit Wikipedia because Google has already scraped them with AI so you can just see the maybe accurate summary. Seems risky, as if you should have to log in to use Google since the AI might have forbidden information.