Comment by thomastjeffery

> It's still a valid argument. Again I wasn't really endorsing any position there, but I do think that in general the government should try to protect children. The only way I could imagine you disagreeing with that broad mandate is if you're a strong libertarian in general?

My point is that it is not a strong argument. It isn't an argument at all! Instead, "think of the children" is a thoughtless appeal to emotion. The irony is that my position comes from actually thinking of the children. Censorship does not help children at all. Instead, it degrades well moderated platforms, which incentivizes children into interacting with poorly moderated platforms.

> I just don't see them as being in that significant of a position.

That's incredible to me. What website could possibly be more important to laypeople? Maybe YouTube or Facebook, I suppose, but neither of those could begin to replace Wikipedia.

> The real nuclear option--blocking the UK from accessing Wikimedia sites--would certainly garner some attention.

That's an understatement. Everyone would notice. Even more interestingly, it would illustrate to everyone the absurdity of internet censorship: everyone would immediately learn a workaround, because it's impossible to actually censor the internet.