[Chu4eeno]

Considering wikimedia hosts what most people would consider porn (randomly came across a video of a couple going at it once) without any ability to filter it from the rest of the content/hide by default, it's not that surprising they are covered, I'm more surprised ofcom relented.

[wildzzz]

Just because there's a video of sexual acts doesn't mean Wikimedia exists for the prurient interest. It's not like Wikimedia is hosting a clip from "Backdoor Sluts 5", it's really just video of sex in the academic sense. Does a young child need to watch it? No, but I also don't think it should it should be censored. A teenager below the age of majority may benefit from seeing what sex actually is. So often a teenager's first visual experience with sex is from unrealistic porn. I'm not saying a realistic depiction of sex should be included in every sex ed classroom lesson but it should be freely available.

[pocksuppet]

Actually, Wikimedia Commons has a category for pornographic videos.

[fsckboy]

>Just because there's a video of sexual acts doesn't mean Wikimedia exists for the prurient interest.

nice goalpost move. just because wikimedia doesn't exist solely for the prurient interest doesn't mean that it should therefore provide pornography to children in places that have made that illegal.

And just because you tilt the table toward providing pornography to children doesn't mean I should be downvoted for honest debate.