Readit NewsDemonstrably false. It creates a safer online world for some.
> In particular the foundation is concerned the extra duties required - if Wikipedia was classed as Category 1 - would mean it would have to verify the identity of its contributors, undermining their privacy and safety.
Some of the articles, which contain factual information, are damning for the UK government. It lists, for example, political scandals [1] [2]. Or information regarding hot topics such as immigration [3], information that the UK government want to strictly control (abstracting away from whether this is rightfully or wrongfully).
I can tell you what will (and has already) happened as a result:
1. People will use VPNs and any other available methods to avoid restrictions placed on them.
2. The next government will take great delight in removing this law as an easy win.
3. The likelihood of a British constitution is increasing, which would somewhat bind future parliaments.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Labour_Party_(UK)_sca...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_immigration_to_the_Unit...
As an repetition of and an aside to all those pointing out that there is a constitution, what may find gaining some momentum after this are calls for a Bill of Rights, something England used to have[1].
A distribution and installation system that works on almost any device?
We're talking JSON APIs -- HTML forms are incompatible with that no matter the verb.
> Basic redirect support is pretty universal, but things quickly fall apart on most browsers when you do tricky things like use non-GET/POST methods on redirecting resources.
There were other things too, I'm not sure CORS supported anything but GET and POST early on either. Wanting consistency and then sticking to it isn't an inherently bad thing, there's a lot to know, and people don't update knowledge about everything (I'm speaking generally as well as including my self here).
[0] https://www.mnot.net/blog/2006/01/23/test_xmlhttprequest
In my own African country twitter has become the de-facto channel for various updates and announcements by various state organs and officials. Makes it even worse when you consider the majority of the population has no reliable way to access this information.
And now its locked behind a user account! And it's owned by a potentially rival politician!
More links here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44510745
It seems to me like a lot of the JS outside the browser stuff out there is motivated by JS people not wanting to learn something different. Meanwhile for those of us who have been doing dev outside the browser, all this is worse solutions to problems we've already got solutions for.
- Drawing a mustache on the art = Vandalizing the original data (not what's happening).
- Taking the art home = Deleting the original data (also not what's happening).
- Scraping faces for an AI = Following visitors around the gallery, taking secret photos of them, and publishing a book that rates them by attractiveness.
The fact that the gallery is "public" does not make that behavior acceptable. The same is true here. "Publicly viewable" does not mean "publicly available for any use."
The visitors took the photo, supplied the photo, and put it in a public place.
Which means you should need fewer of them, no?
> It can be the same people that were doing the low-level jobs; they just now can spend their human-level intelligence doing more interesting and challenging work.
Why were you using capable humans on lower level work in the first place? Wouldn't you use cheaper and less skilled workers (entry level) for that work?