Judge tossed claim but said UK must not “significantly impede” Wikipedia operations.
You must log in or register to comment.
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 124 users / day
- 1.05K users / week
- 1.3K users / month
- 4.58K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 4.08K Posts
- 103K Comments
- Modlog
I’d disagree with the notion “it has to”. The chilling effect on a large number of new wiki contributors could be considered more detrimental than weakening sock puppet protection. (IE if a huge country suddenly started jailing people who make edits not considered state-approved)
I suspect there are plenty of ways to allow new accounts to make edits on a smaller subset of articles until they have passed some threshold of trust which could minimize the sock puppet abuse.
Point is everything is a give and take.