Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#11

Post by amiga386 »

> If Ofcom permissibly determines that Wikipedia is a Category 1 service, and if the practical effect of that is that Wikipedia cannot continue to operate, the Secretary of State may be obliged to consider whether to amend the regulations or to exempt categories of service from the Act. In doing so, he would have to act compatibly with the Convention. Any failure to do so could also be subject to further challenge. Such a challenge would not be prevented by the outcome of this claim.

Basically, DENIED, DENIED, DENIED. Ofcom can keep the loaded gun pointed in Wikipedia's face, forever, and make as many threats as it likes. Only if it pulls the trigger does Wikipedia have a case.

Wikipedia should voluntarily remove itself from the UK entirely. No visitors, no editors.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#12

Post by Kim_Bruning »

exasperaited wrote: post #6

It's an interesting thing but I think their specific concerns are somewhat overcooked. As another commenter pointed out in the earlier thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44721712 > The categorisation regulations are a statutory instrument rather than primary legislation, so they _are_ open to judicial review. But the Wikimedia foundation haven't presented an argument as to why the regulations are unlawful,…

> And it could even be modified to exclude Wikipedia specifically;

That's certainly a potential workaround. But carve outs often mean that similar communities become hard to create!

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#13

Post by exasperaited »

amiga386 wrote: post #11

> If Ofcom permissibly determines that Wikipedia is a Category 1 service, and if the practical effect of that is that Wikipedia cannot continue to operate, the Secretary of State may be obliged to consider whether to amend the regulations or to exempt categories of service from the Act. In doing so, he would have to act compatibly with the Convention. Any failure to do so could also be subject to further challenge. S…

But this is how the law works? Even in the USA, the Supreme Court doesn't act on hypotheticals. They wait until someone brings an actual case.

Ofcom haven't ruled Wikipedia is Category 1. They haven't announced the intention to rule it Category 1. The Category 1 rules are not yet in effect and aren't even finalised. They aren't pointing any gun.

Wikipedia have a case that they shouldn't be Category 1 if that happens. But they went fishing in advance (or to use an alternative metaphor, they got out over their skis).

What else is the court to do but give a reassurance that the process will absolutely be amenable to review if the hypothetical circumstance comes to pass? That is what the section you are quoted says.

First, it's a statutory instrument that ministers will amend if it has unintended, severe consequences.

Second, the rules in question have not been written yet and they are being written in conjunction with industry (which will include Wikipedia). Because Ofcom is an industry self-regulation body.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#14

Post by exasperaited »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #12
exasperaited wrote: post #6

It's an interesting thing but I think their specific concerns are somewhat overcooked. As another commenter pointed out in the earlier thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44721712 > The categorisation regulations are a statutory instrument rather than primary legislation, so they _are_ open to judicial review. But the Wikimedia foundation haven't presented an argument as to why the regulations are unlawful,…

> And it could even be modified to exclude Wikipedia specifically; That's certainly a potential workaround. But carve outs often mean that similar communities become hard to create!

I don't doubt that. But again, it is secondary legislation. It's highly amenable to ministerial and parliamentary scrutiny, and it will be amended.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#15

Post by perihelions »

nickslaughter02 wrote: post #10

Wikimedia should block UK access. That will get the attention of media and popularity contest politicians might change their mind. Remember the "Repeal the Online Safety Act" petition? It has gotten over half a million signatures and the response from the government was a loud "no". > The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and eff…

They did do that once,

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3477966 ("Wikipedia blackout page (wikipedia.org)" (2012))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#16

Post by graemep »

corndoge wrote: post #9
graemep wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why they will not do it. Nothing popular will be blocked or shut down.

Porn is popular!

True, but its not going to get blocked. AFAIK all the big porn sites are happily implementing age verification. Why not? Its an excuse to gather data, to increase numbers of registered users or some other form of tracking, and to raise a barrier to entry to smaller competitors.

Other aspects of the OSA have similar effects on other types of sites such as forums vs social media.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#17

Post by sparsely »

layer8 wrote: post #8

The underlying issue remains unaddressed if only Wikipedia-scale sites of “significant value” get special exemption.

Quite. Sites that have resources and influence will be fine - they can either comply with the rules or will be given soft exemptions. It's small and new communities that will suffer.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#18

Post by vidarh »

exasperaited wrote: post #7
beejiu wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting that was before the High Court's further judgments today, and the article has been updated. The full judgment is here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wikimedi...

If Ofcom permissibly determines that Wikipedia is a Category 1 service, and if the practical effect of that is that Wikipedia cannot continue to operate, the Secretary of State may be obliged to consider whether to amend the regulations or to exempt categories of service from the Act. In doing so, he would have to act compatibly with the Convention. Any failure to do so could also be subject to further challenge. Suc…

As someone in the UK: Ofcom is a censor, that by leaving these things unclear are further having a massive chilling effect that is absolutely already being felt.

The issue here is not parental oversight. It's the massively overly broad assault on speech.

The UK PAYG block is a good example of a solution that would have had far less severe impact if extended.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#20

Post by vidarh »

graemep wrote: post #16
corndoge wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Porn is popular!

True, but its not going to get blocked. AFAIK all the big porn sites are happily implementing age verification. Why not? Its an excuse to gather data, to increase numbers of registered users or some other form of tracking, and to raise a barrier to entry to smaller competitors. Other aspects of the OSA have similar effects on other types of sites such as forums vs social media.

Some are not, an ironically, Ofcom's website now provides a handy list of websites you can visit without age verification (in their list of companies they are investigating)
Post reply on HN