Mediaboss Marketing

Bradley Dack leaves Blackburn an absolute hero the kind that maybe you can only understand if you are a Blackburn fan. They are precious.

There are thousands of professional footballers and most of them have unremarkable careers. It is a game that celebrates the few at the expense of the many. A game that, for much of the past decade, has been reduced to a singular debate: Messi or Ronaldo.

But far beyond the bright lights of the Ballon dOr, the Premier League best XIs and Project Mbappe, there are footballers at every club in every corner of the world who are adored by fans. For the past six years at Blackburn Rovers that player, more than any other, has been Bradley Dack.

Bradley Dack will never play in the Premier League. To many his career may even appear to be a story of unfulfilled potential; a seemingly unstoppable rise to the top flight cut cruelly short by not one, but two cruciate ligament injuries. We are quick to judge as football fans. We stay up late at night, scouring Wikipedia profiles, making snap decisions on whether a player had a half-decent career or not based on the clubs they appeared for, the goals they scored or saved, and the honours list at the bottom of the page that, for most, consists of a couple of player of the month awards or a coveted Hammer of the Year gong.

Theres only one judgement that really matters though: what did that player make you feel?

If they never played for your club, then your opinion of their utility is instantly discounted. Tweet your tweet, say your piece, its all immaterial. Because you only truly understand the value of a player, of the person, by how they made you feel when you watched them in the colours that are etched into the fabric of your being.

When they pulled you out of your seat as they surged down the channel; when they gave you that cherished moment with a loved one as they scored a last-minute winner or cleared one off the line at the death; when you winced as a challenge sent them crashing into the turf, promotion dreams on the line but more than that, the pain of seeing someone suffer in agony, someone who, despite all that time sharing the same stadium, you have never met, but still care for on a level that makes very little actual sense.

On a football level, Dacks greatest achievement at Rovers was his pivotal role in securing promotion out of League One at the first attempt. The significance of that triumph isnt lost on Rovers fans, especially against the backdrop of Sheffield Wednesdays plight in the play-offs this season. Were it not for Dacks goals and Dacks vibes, at a time when the club was on its knees, a short stay in the third tier could have given way to a long, gruelling struggle to escape.

Dack was clearly at home in the Championship. Fifteen goals in his first season from midfield; nine in 22 at the start of his second as he looked on course for his best tally in blue-and-white halves and destined for the Premier League with or without Rovers. Until tragedy struck against Wigan. I was there that night with my dad, back home for Christmas and attending one of the handful of home games I can attend each season since moving out of the area. It was immediately apparent the situation was bleak. Thirty years of following Rovers distilled briefly into recollections of harrowing injuries, heroes strewn on the grass.

As he assessed Dacks injury after that grim 0-0 draw on a freezing December night, among his concerns for the player Tony Mowbray acknowledged, For the club its hugely disappointing and maybe on a day like today Bradley Dack can do something on the pitch that takes the mediocrity out of it. For all the tributes to Dack as he departs Rovers this week at the end of his contract, that line from Mowbray, the nod to a rare individual talent who could overcome footballs ever-lingering mediocrity, is arguably still the most fitting.

For it wasnt just the fans that felt something when Dack played at his best. Mowbray spoke of him with the fondness of a proud father; Ben Brereton Diaz and John Buckley beamed alongside him as the trio enjoyed their regular fishing trips; former captain Elliott Bennett displayed the warmth of a brother, unforgettably holding up Dacks shirt as the pair celebrated another goal in front of the Blackburn End.

In Messis iconic celebration of the same genre, he held up his own shirt Dack had Bennett on hand to do it for him. Even Jon Dahl Tomasson, despite trying to usher in a new era this season, was eventually won over by Dack as he made his latest comeback from injury.

Its clear that Dack has left an indelible mark. A fan hero denied the wider acclaim that is ultimately meaningless. Anyone who watched him at Blackburn, and many who played alongside him, will remember him fondly for being a player who could do what they could only dream of doing with the ball. A player who not only captured the energy of entire stadiums, but ignited it, bent it to his will.

It seems that should be worth more than any trophy, any record-breaking transfer, any bulging Wikipedia honours list. Most football fans will never be able to savour the joy of having watched Bradley Dack in his prime; of recalling a player who, during his six years at Rovers, helped restore the soul of a broken club. It is a legacy scored in hearts and memories, the places where, when all the dust settles, it matters most.

See the rest here:
Bradley Dack is the kind of football hero that cannot be judged on a ... - Football365

Here we are going to share the news with you that Jack Whitehall and his girlfriend Roxy Horner are trending on the web and gaining the attention of the people. They are in the headlines because of the viral news that they are going to be parents. This news is getting circulated on the web and creating several questions in the mind of the people. People are hitting the search engine to gain all the details about the news. What happened to them? Is this news true? We will try to cover all the details of the news. Lets continue the article.

According to the report, Recently Jack disclosed the news on Instagram with a post of two black-and-white pictures featuring him and Horner smiling and Whitehall holding the scan pictures in his hand. If we talk about his girlfriend so Roxy Horner is a famous model and made her debut in British Vogue at the age of 17. He is born on 20 June 1991. She is 31 years old. Several things remain to tell you about the news, which you will find in the next section of the article.

According to the report, She has been a part of the premiere Model Management modeling agency and is a model for various brands, for example, Bohoo, Superday, and Boux Avenue. She has started her career as an actress and has been coming in a few films. At the time of the 2021 Brit Awards, Horner experienced the situation of collapsed at the event, which was being hosted by Whitehall. After getting unconscious she was admitted to the hospital and she got to know that she has diabetes. She has shared her bad experience with her fans on her Instagram story. Scroll down the page to know more information about the news.

Furthermore, Roxy was previously in a relationship with singer Jack Bugg. She spent a good time. Reportedly, She was also linked to Leonardo DiCaprio and Joey Essex. She and Leonardo appeared together at various events and although there were reports that the duo spent a night at a hotel. However, she denied the rumors. Jack Whitehall and Roxy Horner first met when the former was traveling to Australia. The couple started living together at Whitehalls house in London, on the basis of the sources. We have shared all the details about the news, which we have fetched from other sources. If we get any further details we will tell you first at the same site. Stay tuned for more updates.

Read the rest here:
Who is Roxy Horner? Jack Whitehall's Girlfriend Age, Wikipedia And ... - PKBnews.in

Welcome to the third episode of my ignored news blog.

For some months the specialist media have been tracking a major structural change in the worlds economy brought-on by the Ukraine War: Not the well-publicised crisis of food or energy prices; but of who controls the worlds financial payments system, and its use to enforce Western sanctions. Yet for some reason, the rest of the mainstream news just doesnt seem interested in the consequences of this for every citizen of the affluent West.

As someone who has spent an unreasonably long amount of time protesting outside American military and intelligence sites, its always been clear to me that American power isnt primarily cultural, or military:Its economic. More importantly, its the power of the American state to make dollars unobtainable to ration peoples access to ready cash which forces compliance to Americanhegemonic control1.

The power of the dollar has,for decades2, granted the USA not just global power, but also a more stable domestic economy as it controls the global trade system for its own self-interest: Between a third and a half of global trade is sold in dollars; about half of global debt is valued in dollars; and for that reason, 84% of foreign exchange transactions involve dollars, as countries or companies buy or sell dollars so that they can trade with someone else.

Now that system is faltering, in part driven by the conflict in Ukraine and the popular news media are seemingly oblivious to the significance of this.

Theneo-colonial strangle-hold3of The West is based within its control over the global banking system. Yes, each country may have its own central bank and national currency, but when banks or states settle payments between themselves they do so usingreserve currencies4: Mostly dollars, sterling, or euros; traded mainly via banks who are regulated by the US or European states; and transferred electronically using digital networks controlled by Western states such as theSWIFT network5. This not only means that Western finance institutions mediate global trade, they can also levy a tax on global trade through the fees for reserve currency trading and payment transaction fees.

There are no UN-authorised sanctions against Russia because the UN cannot sanction any permanent member of theUN Security Council6 which is what has permitted the US, Britain, France, Russia, and China, to abuse human rights and launch illegal wars for the past seventy years.

For that reason, whatsanctions do exist7are led by the US and the EU using their powers to control the international finance system. This has, historically, allowed The West to exert its power over the rest of the world by economically strangling those states or companies who will not comply with Western foreign policy irrespective of the position of, andoften condemned by8, the United Nations.

The power of Russia as a global resource producer has enabled it to maintain trade with many states, reducing the direct effect of US and EU sanctions. Countries like India and China depend on those resources, and have continued to trade with Russia despite the protestations of The West. Now theEU is threatening9sanctions against the states who continue to trade with Russia. Question is, are the actions of the US, UK, and Europe, beginning to undermine their historic economic power?

As part of theBelt and Road10initiative, China has beenopening-up its currency11to trade with nations it has partnered with. In March, China and Brazil concludeda trade deal12where both countries agreed to settle trade accounts in each others currency. By May, Russia, Bangladesh, Argentina, and Iran,had also announced13they would begin trading goods in ChineseYuan14.

TheBRICS nations15 Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, considered by Western economists to be the second tier of the world economic system are now mulling over the idea of a common currency for trade. Our media has, thus far, singularly failed to explain the significance of this to the Western public.

As a formerWhitehouse adviser stated16:

Itd be like a new union of up-and-coming discontents who, on the scale of GDP, now collectively outweigh not only the reigning hegemon, the United States, but the entire G-7 weight class put together.

Personally, I see this as a positive: Its a measure which works to end the neocolonial influence of the worldsthree-dozen-or-so17affluent states. What it appears our popular media fail to realise, however, is just what power in a resource-hungry world the BRICS nations hold:

Before the Twentieth Century global trade had been mediated in gold or silver. That system broke down in the 1930s, to be replaced in 1944 with theBretton Woods agreements18. This linked global trade to the value of the dollar. By the 1970s, as the American economy ceased to operate at a surplus to spread those dollars around, it fell apart but the centralisation of global trade around the dollar, and some other reserve currencies, continued.

Until the middle of the Twentieth Century, via their colonial territories, Western states imported cheap resources, manufactured them into finished goods, and then sold them back to the rest of the world to close the economic cycle. Globalisation, and deficit economics, traded the economic power of Western states as consumers of finished goods with the cheap manufacturing economies of Asia with Western companies still controlling a large portion of the worlds resource exploitation, and the financial system, to create profits which flowed back into the Western states.

Today much of The West has similar problems to the US economy of the 1970s: Operating at a deficit; issuing debt to fund their national economies in reserve currencies; and then trading the value of those debts on the global money market, via their central banks, to keep the cash flowing to the rest of the world to buy goods.

For sixty years, Western states have effectively drained$2 trillion dollars a year19from the rest of the world to fund their economies, paid for by the loss of value or income by the poorer nations of theGlobal South20. These capital flows, supporting the affluent consumption of The West, are also innately linked toglobal ecological destruction21.

That is what might be about to end: The reality that, since colonialism arose in the Sixteenth Century, it has been thetransfer of economic value22from the Global South which has historically supported the civilised lifestyle that denoted The Wests global supremacy.

Led by the BRICS states who between them control not only a large proportion of the worlds manufacturing capacity, but also large amounts of the mineral resources required in digital and green technologies a non-Western trade currency would cut Western economies out of that loop. Not simply the profits of primary resource production, or financial trading, but more significantly the ability to secure cheap tradeable debt from the world economy in order to fund national deficits.

Western politicians should be wise to this: For Britain and the US, especially, it has the potential to completely up-end the operation the national economy. Instead theyre stoking conflict with China: In effect facing-down the competing ambitions of other states by threatening first economic, and ultimately military force, in order to preserve their historic dominance over the world system.

In 2016, the once fted but of late suppressed journalist, John Pilger, producedanother one23of his insightful documentaries entitled,The Coming War With China24. And one of the key reasons why that documentary is frowned upon, in The West at least, is that it shows how America, as the worlds hegemon, has since Barack Obamas presidency sought to paint China asa military threat25.

Politiciansin the US26are now openly talking about war with China. Some military figures believe it could beas soon as 202527. And with the Ukraine crisis being fuelled by Western states still pursuing theWolfowitz Doctrine28, that increases the chances of conflict with Russia.

For many political insiders and lobbyists this represents a business plan: The threat of China is a reason for Western states to splash mega-bucks on new military technologies; which inevitably involves spending money on lobbyists and political donations. This might enrich the wealthy elite, but it doesnt address the real global changes which are happening right now. If anything, it makes those changes worse through stoking conflict rather than pursuing diplomacy.

To bring this full-circle: Americas global network ofhundreds of military bases29project US power, but ultimately it is economic power which drives the American military machine. America and Britain are now pushing an agenda of military force against China, just at the moment China is weaponising economics the way The West have done for the last seventy years.

It was the economic effects of the Vietnam War which broke the Bretton Woods system in 1971. Today it is the failure ofneoliberalism and globalisation30which reaching their effective peak are breaking the global trade system. In all likelihood this will break the historic hegemony of The West, creating a multi-polar world which reorders the world trade and finance systems.

For most people, all this talk of conflict with China creates concerns about the availability of cheap goods. In reality its the availability of cheap debt, which funds their daily life, which is far less secure as the BRICS nations opt out of the Western economic system and which, ultimately, will redefine the lifestyle of Western citizens as their historic hegemonic control of world trade and finance collapses.

Endnotes

1. Wikipedia: Hegemony.

2.The Economist:The power and the limits of the American dollar

3. Wikipedia:Neocolonialism.

4. Wikipedia:Reserve currency.

5. Wikipedia:SWIFT.

6. Wikipedia:United Nations Security Council.

7. Wikipedia:International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War.

8. United Nations:UN rights chief bemoans unilateral sanctions on Venezuela, fearing far-reaching implications, 8th August 2019.

9. AP News:EU takes aim at countries helping Russia to avoid sanctions, 9th May 2023.

10. Wikipedia:Belt and Road Initiative.

11. Reuters:Chinas small steps on offshore use of yuan are starting to add up, 27th April 2023.

12. Straits Times:China, Brazil strike deal to ditch dollar for trade,30th Mar 2023.

13. Business insider:Chinas yuan is emerging as a strong challenger to the dollars dominance. Here are 5 countries that recently turned to the yuan instead of the USD for trade, 9th May 2023.

14. Wikipedia:Yuan (currency).

15. Wikipedia:BRICS.

16. Business Insider:The dollars dominance would face a threat unlike any other from a BRICS currency, former White House economist says, 25th April 2023.

17. Wikipedia:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

18. Wikipedia:Bretton Woods system.

19. Al Jazeera:Rich countries drained $152tn from the global South since 1960, 6th May 2021.

20. Wikipedia:Global North and Global South.

21. Ecological Economics:Global patterns of ecologically unequal exchange Implications for sustainability in the 21st century, vol.179 art.106824, January 2021.

22. Wikipedia:Unequal exchange.

23. John Pilger:The Coming War on China.

24. Documentary Central:John Pilger Documentary The Coming War on China.

25. Wikipedia:East Asian foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration.

26. Al Jazeera:Very high odds of war with China, US Republican warns, 29th January 2023.

27. Guardian On-line:US generals gut feeling of war with China sparks alarm over predictions, 2nd February 2023.

28. Wikipedia:Wolfowitz Doctrine.

29. Al Jazeera:US military presence around the world, 10th September 2021

30. Forbes:Globalization Is (Almost) Dead New Book By FT Columnist Rana Foroohar Explains Why, 18th October 2022.

Photo by Jp Valery on Unsplash

More:
The Unspeakable Death of the 'Almighty Dollar' - Resilience

Wikipedia is probably the most widely used encyclopedia in the world. If youre looking for facts, it is pretty reliable. For example, if you want to compare the number of traffic roundabouts per capita in the US and other countries, Wikipedia will provide a nice graph from the World Economic Forum showing that the UK has about thirteen times as many as the US.

On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for some controversial topics. The very biased entry for political scientist Charles Murray is a striking example. The following history shows something of how this works.

A friend tried to make a small change to the entry for Murray. His account was then blocked. This was done by an anonymous and self-selected collection of highly motivated individualsmore about them in a moment.

After hearing of my friends failure, I decided to have a go myself. I tried several things, but the simplest was to change a single word. I altered a paragraph referring to Herrnstein and Murrays widely attacked 1994 book The Bell Curve. As it stood, this section read as follows:

The books most controversial argument hinged on a hypothesized relationship betweenrace and intelligence, specifically the hypothesis that differences in average IQ test performance between racial groups are at least partially genetic in origin. Subsequent developments in genetics research have led to a scholarly consensus that this hypothesis is false. The idea that there are genetically determined differences in intelligence between racial groups is now considered discredited by mainstream science [emphasis added].

This paragraph is factually incorrect. First, there is no real consensus that the difference in test performance between racially identified groups is not partly genetic. Almost any measurable characteristic, whether physical or behavioral, has some heritable component. Second, since this position has not been proved falsewhich would be extremely difficult to do for a human population not available for breeding experimentsits incorrect to say that it has been discredited. On the other hand, theres no doubt that many reject it.

I therefore corrected the last sentence as follows:

The idea that there are genetically determined differences in intelligence between racial groups is now rejectedby mainstream science.

The change was accepted, but then reversed a few hours later. I tried again, but it was again reversed. This repeated a few times and, eventually, I got this message: Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Charles Murray (political scientist), you may be blocked from editing. Apparently, my minor change was regarded as vandalism. (The message was pseudonymous, but it linked to a website which proclaims, This user is of dubious and undisclosed gender, and uses they/them pronouns.)

It turns out that the Wikipedia editorial system, organized in a complicated way that I confess I do not fully understand, classifies some positions as fringe: the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedias definition of a fringe theory. Fringe theories are to be excluded from Wikipedia, apparently.

Of course, the idea that many behavioral characteristics, including IQ, are heritable is far from a fringe theory. Wikipedias fallacious summary of the issue is:

Group differences in IQ are real and areprimarily or entirely caused by social and/or environmental factors. Group differences in IQ do not truly exist and are the result of inappropriate use of the tests themselves [emphasis added].

No unbiased discussion of group differences in intelligence may be found in Wikipedias vast corpus. So, I decided to try a different tack.

This paragraph in the Charles Murray entry cites several critiques of The Bell Curve:

After its publication, academics criticized the book over his assertions on race and IQ.[38][39] Some said it supported long-discredited scientific racism[40][41][42][43] and a number of books were written to rebutThe Bell Curve. Those works included a 1996 edition of evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Goulds The Mismeasure of Man; a collection of essays, The Bell Curve Wars(1995), reacting to Murray and Herrnsteins commentary; and The Bell Curve Debate (1995), whose essays similarly respond to issues raised in The Bell Curve. Arthur S. GoldbergerandCharles F. Manskicritiqued the empirical methods supporting the books hypotheses.[44]

The Bell Curves most influential critic was Stephen Jay Gould in the updated version of his 1981 book The Mismeasure of Man. The most effective critique of Gould is J. Philippe Rushtons 1997 paper Race, intelligence, and the brain: The errors and omissions of the revised edition of S. J. Goulds the mismeasure of man (Person. individ. Diff. Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 169-180, 1997). Rushtons critique is not mentioned in the Wikipedia entry.

Rushton himself is a controversial figure. So, rather than cite his work, I decided to focus on two of the most blatant errors in Goulds book. I therefore inserted a passage after the paragraph of critical references along the following lines:

Goulds criticism of The Bell Curve was probably the most effective. For example, in Mismeasure he wrote Herrnstein and Murray violate fairness by converting a complex case that can yield only agnosticism into a biased brief for permanent and heritable difference. Herrnstein died in 1994, just as the book was published, but Goulds accusations still dog Murray.

In fact, on p. 311, The Bell Curve says precisely what Gould accused Herrnstein and Murray of not saying:

It seems highly likely to us that both genes and environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be?We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate. [emphases added]

Herrnstein and Murray also cited the work of 19th century physician and scientist Samuel Morton, who compared the brain volumes of European, Asian and African skulls, finding that African brains were smaller than Asian and European. Gould, in Mismeasure, disputed that also, suggesting that Morton had subconsciously manipulated the brain volumesto favor his bias that Europeans had larger brains and African smaller ones. However, a 2011 study[1] by physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania confirmed a few earlier studies which found that Morton was in fact correct and Goulds claim is wrong.

Nevertheless, these flawed, not to say mendacious, attacks by Gould and others, have effectively excluded Murrays work from the public IQ debate.

Needless to say, this insertion was also repeatedly deleted.

This little history reveals a flaw in the way that Wikipedia treats science. Error and debate are intrinsic to science. A consensus isnt necessarily correct. If opinion is divided, it is simply wrong to dismiss the minority view as fringe.

Wikipedia treats some other controversial issues more fairly. Its discussion of climate change, for example, acknowledges that there is debate over the amount and causes of global temperature change (although it exaggerates the size of the dominant majority).

But race and intelligence is clearly a taboo subject, as I have noticed in other interactions. Even after lengthy phone and email conversations with a reporter for Inside Higher Education, for example, he continued to charge that the factual claim that blacks have, on average, substantially lower IQs than whites is itself racist. The fact that Herrnstein and Murray make a similar claim in their book evidently places them beyond the pale.

Unfortunately, this blackwhite difference exists. Whether it is genetically based is almost impossible to determine and absolutely irrelevant for public policy. If there is a difference in cognitive ability, and if politicians insist on obsessing over group-average data on income, health, etc., then honest science demands that we also look at other differences, such as IQ, that may help account for these socio-economic differences.

But we mustnt do this, according to other sources such as top science journals and the mass media. The problem, of course, is that if Wikipedia readers are forbidden to even consider the possibility of differences in interests and abilities between racial groups, all that is left to account for the economic and social disparities between blacks and whites is systemic racism, an unmeasurable, hence irrefutable, evil perpetrated by whites against black people. Which is what has happened. White people are now routinely slandered as racists because other potential causes of blackwhite group disparities have been suppressedWikipedia is one of the guilty parties.

Image: Adobe Stock

More:
WikiBias: How Wikipedia erases fringe theories and enforces conformity - Minding The Campus

Wikipedia won't be age-gating its services no matter what final form the UK's Online Safety Bill takes, two senior folks from nonprofit steward the Wikimedia Foundation said this morning.

The bill, for those who need a reminder, styles itself as world-leading legislation which aims to make the UK "the safest place in the world to be online" and has come under fire not only for its calls for age verification but also for wording that implies breaking encryption, asking providers to make content available for perusal by law enforcement, either before encryption or somehow, magically, during.

The new legislation asks that platforms control risks for underage visitors, prompting the foundation to come out to say it won't age-restrict its entries.

In a statement to national UK broadcaster the BBC this morning, Rebecca MacKinnon, vice president of Global Advocacy at Wikimedia, said that to perform such verification would "violate our commitment to collect minimal data about readers and contributors."

Wikimedia UK chief Lucy Crompton-Reid told the Beeb it was "definitely possible that one of the most visited websites in the world - and a vital source of freely accessible knowledge and information for millions of people - won't be accessible to UK readers (let alone UK-based contributors)."

The bill is currently in the committee stage at the House, where the peers are considering a "full package of amendments [that] defines and sets out the rules of the road for age assurance, including the timing of its introduction, and the definition of terms such as age verification and age assurance."

Though one can't predict how that will go, back in February, more than one of the Lords were disappointed that an earlier version of the Bill didn't stop children from accessing pornography, explicitly calling for age verification to be written into the face of the Bill to prevent this.

The Earl of Erroll, who is the Parliamentary Chair of the Digital Safety Tech Group, spoke of the "the sadness of the constitutional impropriety when the Executive refused to implement the will of Parliament," when UK ministers tried to push age verification in the Digital Economy Act 2017 - suggesting some factions are ready for round 2 of the DEA.

As Jo Joyce, senior counsel in Taylor Wessing's commercial tech & data team, told us at the time, when the OSB returned to Parliament: "The protection of children and vulnerable people online is perceived as a vote winner for the government and dropping the Bill entirely was unlikely to be an option, despite the concerns of free speech advocates and pressure from tech businesses."

Internet age verification in the DEA was killed off in 2019, with Reg readers, and security and privacy experts alike concerned about the collation of private data necessitated by making such checks. Among the proposals was signing up with one's credit card a deeply unpopular idea and allowing certain firms to work as information collectors / age verification service providers, creating huge jackpot targets of citizen data. The Lords, however, said they felt that "anonymous age verification is possible."

We asked the Wikimedia Foundation if it had been approached by the governmentabout the so-called "Encyclopaedia exception," which would allow certain platforms to escape the effect of the relevant clauses. We also asked about the geographic distributionof Wikipediaeditorsas it relates to the UK. The most recent statistic we could find was that 13 percent of Wikipedians are based in the UK, although that data was from 2013. Given its stance on user data collation, we doubt the org has these numbers.

Tech orgs have been increasingly stepping up to voice their concerns over the Online Safety Bill for weeks, with end-to-end-encrypted communication platforms Element, Session, Signal, Threema, Viber, WhatsApp and Wire urging the government to reconsider.

In an open letter earlier this month, the companies above branded the bill an "unprecedented threat to the privacy, safety and security of every UK citizen and the people with whom they communicate around the world." They said the move would embolden "hostile governments who may seek to draft copy-cat laws."

Read the original:
Online Safety Bill age checks? We won't do 'em, says Wikipedia - The Register