If article13 (renumbered to Article 17) sinks.....

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

If article13 (renumbered to Article 17) sinks.....

Post by Graaf Statler » Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:15 pm

If article 13/17 sinks, the real problem for WMF start. Jimmy is on his twitter exited of Julia I can't Read her Twitter message, but it is a nightmare. Because if article 13 sinks I asure you both WMF and Jimmy will be the subject of a an EU investigation..............
There is a huge change they will be summoned if that happens, so I don't understand why Jimmy is so enthusiastic. He can better pray article13 will pass.........

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: If article13 (renumbered to Article 17) sinks.....

Post by Graaf Statler » Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:37 am

"The future of the Internet" is not at risk here, and this sort of "protest" does not advance Wikipedia's stated purposes at all. The idea that nations must make their laws conform to Wikipedia "consensus" does not fly at all. Collect (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


I don't agree with this perspective at all. This legislation is wrong-headed for Internet users and is a very real threat to the openness of the Internet. It will also entrench the power of the Internet giants and make things very difficult for smaller sites. To explain that last people - there is a "SME" exception which only applies to websites - of any size, no matter how small - which are younger than 3 years old. There are a great many wonderful communities which are not part of the Google/Facebook/Microsoft/Apple/Twitter empires which will now be forced to proactively monitor everything their users do with no safe harbor at all. It's devastating.
I don't know of anyone who claims that nations "must make their laws confirm to Wikipedia 'consensus'" - you may want to read up on the Straw man fallacy. The reason isn't just for the purposes of being more effective in debate - if you think my position is that, then you aren't really hearing what I'm saying.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Source, licence CC SA-SY 3.0

Who, ho, ho ho, mister Jimbo, hold on.
At it's best you represent a American foundation, at it worst not even. We are talking about European regulation and you are not in he position to try to overrule European regulation or laws of the European country's. There it is about.
In Europe, in the proud Kingdom the Nederlands my government and the EU where we are a member state of make the rules and not you or your foundation. Let that be very clear. Nor you, nor the Wikimedia foundation, nor your trustees, nor your director have any jurisdiction here. Neither over our laws, nor over me.
You and your foundation have themself misbehaved a terrible way in our jurisdiction also agains a Dutch civilian, to be more exact agains me. The EU has clearly noticed this, and I trust my government and the EU and special mister Voss this will be very, very careful examined.

I think it will be wise to shut up complete from now on Jimmy. Het laatste woord is hier niet over gezegd.
Next week is the democratic voting in the European parlement and that voting is simple not of your or the foundation there business. Not. (dot) This is a European affair and stay out of it, both you and the foundation.

Post Reply