https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wikimedi...
Reminder that they attacked YouTube - the Video Museum.
> The "news" are there (the Springfield times and the Patagonian Mirror), the "intelligence" (the interview to the Prestigious, the interview from the Authority, the exchange from the Thinkers, the commentary from the Author, the piece from the Periodical...), the "institutes" (the Conference, the Presentation etc.), the "academy" ("""only""" the courses of the MIT, for example, and courses from many other Universities and free Professors), the "divulgation" (a large amount of divulgators of primary importance from 3blue1brown to Steve Mould, Lesics, Asianometry...), the inquirers and commentators in all areas and disciplines, the museum of the historical pieces that must be preserved out of preciousness and importance (from the voice of Freud to the lessons of Dirac), and a massive wealth of Arts and good entertainment. // The value of the above is beyond the scale; its attendance should be taken for a requirement. // A kid that grows up without access to that is something that must be disposed of, wasted, spoiled - "sorry kid, in the ditch. You have not been exposed to Culture, now you are valueless. These things must be absorbed early". // And beasts that restrict access to e.g. the _free_ lessons from the MIT are to be treated as less than beasts.
> We did mean "know, prestigious intellectuals": academicians and renown experts. // The last public intervention of Niall Ferguson is of yesterday; that of Francis Fukuyama is of a few days ago; I see a Paul Scharre out in the past few days... All on YouTube, of course. // Repeat: either the kids have absorbed all of the higher culture we are so lucky today to have disseminated in immediately accessible places, or they can be disposed of as spoilt, wasted - useless. Higher culture that is chiefly on YouTube when in video form: kids are ___mandated___ to it.
(Quoting myself.)
Reminder that if they remove anonymous access, Men will be forced out.
Reminder that the beasts in australia also were reported to wanting to block search engines, together with Wikipedia.
> It’s important for kids to do this online, an arena where they often develop social skills and refine their identities.
Later on they say:
> Rather than attempting to block young people from online services that allow them to access information and engage in age-essential communication
The fact being “social media online” is taken as a given for under 16s is laughable. Kids do not need to socialize like this, they do not need to be online, they can and should go outside. When they turn 16 their brains will be slightly more fully formed and I could go on and on but it seems these authors just want the kids exposed to the algorithms.
They ___must___ at the same level as they must read. See posts elsewhere in this page.
“Beasts” eh? Sounds a little hyperbolic. I’m going to need a reference for the search engine and Wikipedia blocking claims.
prologic•51m ago
mdp2021•39m ago
The attempt is everywhere - probably not just in the undead "western world".
Can I remind you that the thing out in the australian government uttered something like "a hill to die on"? What were the exact words?
Why are not people outpspoken on the bestiality of those things? To stress the total difference that separates from those things?
prologic•32m ago
Forgive me for being passionate. But this isn't the way to solve the problem.
mdp2021•18m ago
Going "entrance forbidden to the libraries and bookstores: they are full of bad texts (and there are people scribbling dumb harmful things on the billboards there)" is not "protecting children".
(With reference to YouTube, chiefly, but not necessarily excluding other repositories. And not to mention the actual intention to block access to encyclopedias.)
derektank•2m ago