11–20 of 101 posts
Governments would rather censor the whole internet before putting people who have credible allegations of sex crimes against children under investigation and in handcuffs when appropriate.
Governments would rather censor the whole internet before putting people who have credible allegations of sex crimes against children under investigation and in handcuffs when appropriate.
...and none of this has anything to do with Prince Andrew et al (because that's in real-life, not on the Internet).
It's the exact same process that lead to the 2010s IWF/Cleanfeed/Wikipedia block over controversial 1970s music album art.
It's idiocy and fear of a rabid public, not a conspiracy.
In other words, "stay where you are for now, we promise to extend the legislation to cover you in the future".
Did you actually read the article. Ofcom used a "novel reading of the law" to exempt Wikipedia. The law it seems already covers Wikipedia. Ofcom are choosing not to enforce. I interpret the watchlist comments as ofcom setting up a defensible position for themselves. Yes the law is probably wrong to include Wikipedia, but the enforcers of the law seem to have common sense. Which overall seems to be a win.
They know full well that if a successful legal challenge forced them to weaken parts of the OSA by removing service categories from scope, that they'd effectively open the floodgates to more challenges over other categories. The government and Ofcom don't want their precious work ripped up and the courts seemingly don't want to be responsible for doing so.
Whatever loophole they've found, it is practically a certainty that it will be addressed in the future.
In other words, "stay where you are for now, we promise to extend the legislation to cover you in the future".
Did you actually read the article. Ofcom used a "novel reading of the law" to exempt Wikipedia. The law it seems already covers Wikipedia. Ofcom are choosing not to enforce. I interpret the watchlist comments as ofcom setting up a defensible position for themselves. Yes the law is probably wrong to include Wikipedia, but the enforcers of the law seem to have common sense. Which overall seems to be a win.
"For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."
Governments would rather censor the whole internet before putting people who have credible allegations of sex crimes against children under investigation and in handcuffs when appropriate.
We have a story in the news currently about a foreign child gang rape leader (yes, those are things in the UK) who raped at least 30 children and was released early after serving just 14 years in prison.
We have major children sexual abuse scandals in this country basically every year too. Politicians never care about that though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you actually read the article. Ofcom used a "novel reading of the law" to exempt Wikipedia. The law it seems already covers Wikipedia. Ofcom are choosing not to enforce. I interpret the watchlist comments as ofcom setting up a defensible position for themselves. Yes the law is probably wrong to include Wikipedia, but the enforcers of the law seem to have common sense. Which overall seems to be a win.
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.
In other words, "stay where you are for now, we promise to extend the legislation to cover you in the future".
Did you actually read the article. Ofcom used a "novel reading of the law" to exempt Wikipedia. The law it seems already covers Wikipedia. Ofcom are choosing not to enforce. I interpret the watchlist comments as ofcom setting up a defensible position for themselves. Yes the law is probably wrong to include Wikipedia, but the enforcers of the law seem to have common sense. Which overall seems to be a win.
What informed this kind of difference? Is there one?
The US approach seems very much like the way Orthodox Jews follow the halakha by making workarounds around it.
If you don't fight government overreach now, it becomes permanent.
"Tolls are a ratchet - they only move in one direction."