Online Petition Site Crashed By Millions of 'Cancel Brexit' Signers (time.com)

"More than 3 million people have signed a petition to cancel Brexit on the U.K. government's official petitions website -- so many that the website crashed multiple times," reports Time: The petition had received some 600,000 signatures at a rate of 1,500 every 60 seconds before the site crashed at about 9 a.m. U.K. time on Thursday, the Guardian reported. By mid afternoon, the site was back online but suffering intermittent outages. There were 2 million signatures by Thursday evening and 3 million by midday Friday...

The U.K. government must now allow a debate on the petition's contents in parliament.
The Guardian notes that the CTO of company that built the petition site had bragged in a tweet Wednesday that the 1,000 signatures per minute was "Not too bad, but nowhere near crashing the site --you all need to try harder tomorrow."

By the next morning he had tweeted âoeWell done everyone -- the site crashed because calculating the trending count became too much of a load on the database."

Comments

Re: Open to abuse

[foobar666]

Also some lovely information about the person who started the petition: https://order-order.com/2019/0...

3 million is nothing

[Cederic]

17 million voted to the EU and in the second vote (which we've already had, something the petitioners dishonestly ignore) 25 million voted for political parties that had 'leave the EU' in their party manifesto.

So forgive me if I ignore the constant stream of selfish stupid people demanding that we ignore the democratic wishes of the UK population. Perhaps instead they should focus on removing the hundreds of MPs doing their best to overturn that democracy.

Re:Too little credit

[drinkypoo]

"Oh, if only our citizens had been correctly informed, they would never have voted for Brexit!"
That seems to be the defining rationale for all the dissent in the UK today, and it's complete and total bullocks.

1) That's "ballocks". Bullocks are very different, even though they have massive ballocks.
2) We know beyond any doubt that citizens were not correctly informed, because they have told us so. Lots of people who voted for brexit absolutely did not understand what they were voting for.

No one will admit that the UK could voluntarily implement all the agreements it currently has with the EU - such as unrestricted travel between nations - and there would be little hardship.

That's because it would be a lie. Speaking directly to your example, the EU cannot unilaterally implement unrestricted travel, because the right of UK citizens to do that is part of the UK's membership in the EU. They would have to negotiate that being part of a post-brexit agreement, and the EU is unlikely to give on that particular point.

But mostly, the argument that "not enough correct information got out" and "people would have chosen differently with better information" is completely false.

You keep saying that, which means you either don't know what you're talking about, or you're lying. I suspect the latter, frankly, but even the former should be enough to disqualify your comment from relevance.

The UK culture has undergone a massive shift these past 30 years, and the people are not happy with the results. Teens are stabbed every week in London, people are being arrested for online criticism, jobs are hard to come by, and different-culture people are everywhere.

Again, all of that will continue with or without membership in the EU. You'd better figure out how to fix those problems either way, because they're only going to increase.

You give the people of the UK to little credit. They chose, and even if you don't agree with it you should abide by that choice.

They deserve little credit. That doesn't set them apart from most westerners, who are generally underinformed and overcomplacent, but so what?