this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2025
112 points (95.9% liked)

Technology

73287 readers
3645 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 48 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Just FYI, it's considered poor form to post a paywalled article with no way of bypassing it.

[–] PleaseLetMeOut@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago

Hmm. It does sound like Wikipedia's concerns are unlikely to come to fruition.

[–] TurboLag@lemmings.world 5 points 4 days ago

Sorry, I didn't realise it was paywalled. It didn't prompt me to pay when I opened it. It's not a source I usually use, but I couldn't find an alternative unless from much less reputable sites.

[–] PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I still buy the odd paper if I'm working away from home.

These paywalls or "pay for no tracking" wankers make it easy to decide what papers not to buy.

Not that it really matters a flying fuck when print membership is sinking faster than the Oceangate grain of sub. It's satisfying though.

[–] th3dogcow@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Reader view on most browsers will bypass articles like this. It worked for me.

[–] PushButton@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

If Wikipedia can't fully comply and has to resort to blocking, how a small one-man platform is supposed to do it?

Yeah, exactly, block all the UK and move on.

[–] TurboLag@lemmings.world 2 points 4 days ago

I think the law would only apply above a certain number of monthly users, so small platforms are safe from it for now.

[–] scratchee@feddit.uk 31 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I’m not a fan of the laws regardless, but if we pretend for a second they’re justified, it’s worth considering how they should work in a case like Wikipedia. Wikipedia has quite strong protections against problem content already, and that’s because it has a shared global view of content with effective moderation tools and a wide moderator base that respects the rules. That reality should be taken into account in the governments new rules. On the other hand, anyone who understands how this all works was already against this stupid law, so I guess they didn’t get any useful feedback internally

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago

Fucking insane