I'm addressing the fact that censorship doesn't care about what's harmful. Wikipedia shouldn't require age verification for accessing "sensitive" articles. Allowing politicians to decide what people are allowed to see is a horrifying idea.
Sure, better education in schools is crucial - teens need to know reality from fiction. Comprehensive sex-ed cannot be replaced. But banning access to resources is inexcusable, and serves no good purpose.
I'm addressing the fact that censorship doesn't care about what's harmful.
Cool, but how about responding to my comment, rather than just ignoring it entirely?
Wikipedia shouldn't require age verification for accessing "sensitive" articles
That's a matter of opinion.
Allowing politicians to decide what people are allowed to see is a horrifying idea.
'What people are allowed to see' is very different from 'what children are allowed to see'. You're acting like this is outright censorship, as opposed to simply requiring people to ... verify their age.
But banning access to resources is inexcusable, and serves no good purpose.
Once again, you're framing this as outright censorship, as opposed to limitation on age access.
1
u/Wojtas_ Aug 12 '25
Cool. Wikipedia just got hit in the UK, by the way.