"It is illegal for us to recommend using services like a VPN to bypass these limits. We do recommend you ask your government why they don't want you to know about these services or have access to free educational content".

“We do not condone using a VPN to circumvent these restrictions. To make sure you will not accidentally use a VPN we’ve decided to make our article about VPN‘s the only one available in this country.“

The wording on ofcom is "should not" not" must not". It's not illegal, they just don't want people to do it and want people to think that it is illegal.

👆They just need to add this as a disclaimer instead.

Have a banner with information on why it is blocked, and have the only accessible page be of the Online Safety Act. Then, make that page list what counts as "(teaching) circumvention methods" and say that teaching others how to do those things is illegal. If anyone is truly interested in seeking knowledge and learning, they will be able to figure it out elsewhere

Wikipedia is basically a charity that gives people free knowledge. No one profits off of it. What you describe is called civil society, where interest groups attempt to convince the government to take certain actions, and (only without profit motive, in my opinion) it's one of a few indicators of democracy.

Yes and no. Sometimes a company or organization can serve as a force for good. That said, absolutely a double edged sword. It's not fair to expect private businesses and organizations to be held hostage by scummy legislators. At the end of the day, no one is entitled to a business's or organization's services, so... Don't want to chase businesses and organizations away? Don't pass shitty legislation.

I would replace "companies" with "non-profits". Cause it's pretty clear that companies do hold that kind of power. Let me broadly gesture to the companies paying off these hack politicians to pass these laws i.e.; apple, alphabet, meta, and so on.

lol they’ve already had that power for decades. This is where you’re going to get stubborn about it? Suspicious.

Ironically you probably have to identify yourself to Wikipedia to get such an exception…

I do kind of relish the images, though. Picture's worth a thousand words and all. But it's great to have that choice.

I'm generally more annoyed at how the early enthusiasm of participation on the site has died out in the face of paranoia and moderator mania. There are so many gaps in both the modern and historical backlog of citations and categorizations. But do I want to invest dozens of hours contributing to a site where a few admins are just going to tear all my work back out again on a bureaucratic technicality?

It is a site that's alternatively being strangled to death by admins fearful of malicious actors and tore apart by wave after wave of sinister propagandists and hostile agents.