So if I am right in thinking, annas-archive.org is a pro-anorexia site.
If that is the case, then the UK Gov restricting access to a site that is promoting a recognised mental disorder with significant (and potentially fatal) health implications seems entirely appropriate. It seems like well formulated public health policy that would not be seen as contentious across the vast majority of the political spectrum in the UK.
I wonder if in the long run countries that ignore copyright end up with some sort of advantage. All copyright restrictions only effect
1) the poor
2) the uneducated
i.e, the ones that would benefit the most from annas-archive.
So if I am right in thinking, annas-archive.org is a pro-anorexia site.
If that is the case, then the UK Gov restricting access to a site that is promoting a recognised mental disorder with significant (and potentially fatal) health implications seems entirely appropriate. It seems like well formulated public health policy that would not be seen as contentious across the vast majority of the political spectrum in the UK.
You are just wildly, hilariously off the mark.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive
Happy to admit to my ignorance on what annas-archive is. Clearly I had grasped the wrong end of the stick!
This comment is so far away from the truth I do not know whether to downvote it, or upvote it because it made me laugh.
what? just… what?
I wonder if in the long run countries that ignore copyright end up with some sort of advantage. All copyright restrictions only effect 1) the poor 2) the uneducated
i.e, the ones that would benefit the most from annas-archive.