The Wikipedia page implies that all the designated "Category 1" websites will now either have to collect ID from their users worldwide, or remove any presence in the UK.
Edit: there's a list of the Category 1 services at
"If you work at Google and have access to this data, then we realize that $200,000 means little to you, but you'd be hailed a legendary archivist if you're able to sneak out this data."
Yeah, but still, I think I'd prefer to do it anonymously than be the legendary archivist rotting away in prison.
I was unclear how Google's bot would index it if it was behind a paywall. But the "Host two crap tons of content", with the non-paywalled site pointing to the other, would get around it, allowing the hypothetical big spending AI crawlers to find it.
Random writer/journalists outside the mega-news-corps sometimes have a page for donations. You could donate to one once per month if you want to get rid of your $20-30.
Presumably, nobody would offer the 10c per page unless they were making more than the $20 / month or whatever previously. So people will be paying more. Then add all the sites that currently just get what they can with advertising, and now they can become pay-per-view.
A dream for some, a nightmare for others. People locked out from much of the Internet because they don't have enough money. Of course, the prices would usually be set at whatever maximises revenue, just check out scientific journal publishing.
Wikipedia uses "a left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement." Until recently, there was nothing controversial or illegal about being any of those things.
"Since the device is a light bulb, it would be difficult to detect and likely to go unnoticed."
I doubt it would be any harder to shut down than any other public-access WiFi device, just a bit of experimentation with turning off power / devices would find it.
Apparently, if they were search results, they wouldn't have been liable, since there's an exception to defamation laws. Without any exception, defamation is defamation, it doesn't matter how it's presented.
You'd think so, along with other countries that have defamation laws. But there's no indication of any penalty, and Google wasn't even made to pay all the legal fees. Perhaps their business model (if there is any) can cope.
I assume that's meant sarcastically, but it does sum up the capitalist mindset. It's taken along with the understanding that it's fine if all the new economic output ends up in the hands of the 1%.
The original libertarians were anarchists, which is as far to the left as you can get. They adoption of the term on the right seems to date from the 1970s. Anarchists would typically see this version as rule by the rich, privatized tyranny.