Overeager thugs arrested people for the most minor and peaceful of protests on the occasion of the proclamation of Charles III as king of the UK.

Paul Powlesland was threatened with arrest for holding up a blank piece of paper, inviting comparisons with China.

Meanwhile, the UK is rapidly passing laws to repress any sort of protest that inconveniences anyone.

Demands from music copyright holders are pressing to stretch the scope of copyright, making the writing of lawful pop songs very difficult.

Asserting that the fighting in Sudan is a fight between proxies of rich Middle-Eastern powers over control of Sudan's resources.

I have a hunch that some of those powers are gangs rather than states.

Reportedly Libyan General Haftar is allied with one side in Sudan, the militia that is fighting against the Sudanese army, and they are backed by the United Arab Emirates and by Russia.

But I see no info about which powers back the Sudanese army.

Wikipedia warns that the UK's proposed web censorship and age verification requirements would cut off access to Wikipedia in the UK.

Bravo to Wikipedia for refusing to compromise with censorship and tracking. However Ms Crompton-Reid made a grave conceptual error by including Wikipedia in the category of businesses — "players" in a "market".

Wikipedia's virtue, what makes it morally important despite its imperfections, is precisely that it is not a business. It does not operate in a "market", and it has a commitment to a goal beyond its own success.

The cynicism of "players" may resonate with a general vague condemnation of business, which to some extent business in general deserves; but it also tends to silence moral discussion about any business's acts or practices. Even to raise the question of whether a certain business, or a certain line of business, treats people unjustly is more difficult with the "players" metaphor sneering at it.

More guns and more irrational fear make everyone less safe.