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

Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 101 posts

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#21

Post by pipes »

benj111 wrote: post #6
neilalexander wrote: post #3

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.

I'm guessing they won't do it because it will finally wake the public up to all of this, I.e. bad press + scrutiny. The law should be applied equally to all, it shouldn't be a popularity contest.

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#22

Post by pocksuppet »

wildzzz wrote: post #17
Chu4eeno wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Actually, Wikimedia Commons has a category for pornographic videos.

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#23

Post by pocksuppet »

neilalexander wrote: post #13
benj111 wrote: post #6

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.

I did read the article, yes, and it is clear to me that this is a bug, not a feature. Ofcom were suddenly able to find a "novel reading" when directed to do so by a court as a means to temporarily make the problem go away and to avoid having to weaken the legislation. 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…

The UK has "parliamentary supremacy" which means legislation passed by the parliament overrules everything else. If the court determines the legislation has a problem, it goes back to parliament to make sure parliament intended a certain interpretation, but parliament can either change the law, or they can say the court is wrong and the law stands.

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#24

Post by tialaramex »

bsimpson wrote: post #20
big85 wrote: post #16

If you don't fight government overreach now, it becomes permanent.

As my dad told us every time we crossed a bridge when we were kids: "Tolls are a ratchet - they only move in one direction."

Because England is very old it has a whole bunch of things which did charge a toll and then that expired, so, nope.

It does also have situations where people go "Hey, this toll bridge was built 50 years ago, surely the tolls should be abolished" and the people who built the bridge are like "Nope. See, here's the press about it 50 years ago saying what a great idea it is to have the tolls be slightly lower but perpetual". Feel free to build a time machine and go tell your past selves that's not a great idea after all.

But well, nothing is forever. In five hundred years that perpetual toll on a road is obsolete because hardly anybody owns a private vehicle so the toll mostly just moves (local) government money from one pile (funding transport) to another (build infrastructure) and it's not a very efficient way to do that. Or the bridge falls down and its replacement doesn't have a toll because people were sick of tolls. Nothing is forever.

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#25

Post by adammarples »

tialaramex wrote: post #24
bsimpson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As my dad told us every time we crossed a bridge when we were kids: "Tolls are a ratchet - they only move in one direction."

Because England is very old it has a whole bunch of things which did charge a toll and then that expired, so, nope. It does also have situations where people go "Hey, this toll bridge was built 50 years ago, surely the tolls should be abolished" and the people who built the bridge are like "Nope. See, here's the press about it 50 years ago saying what a great idea it is to have the tolls be slightly lower but perpetu…

There are plenty of pubs and houses in the UK called The Old Toll House so I know for sure that some have ended

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#26

Post by frereubu »

pocksuppet wrote: post #23
neilalexander wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did read the article, yes, and it is clear to me that this is a bug, not a feature. Ofcom were suddenly able to find a "novel reading" when directed to do so by a court as a means to temporarily make the problem go away and to avoid having to weaken the legislation. 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…

The UK has "parliamentary supremacy" which means legislation passed by the parliament overrules everything else. If the court determines the legislation has a problem, it goes back to parliament to make sure parliament intended a certain interpretation, but parliament can either change the law, or they can say the court is wrong and the law stands.

> or they can say the court is wrong and the law stands

Surely the way that parliament says the court is wrong is to re-legislate. They can't just have a vote and say "that interpretation is wrong" if, for example, the Supreme Court rejects their interpretation.

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#27

Post by neilalexander »

pocksuppet wrote: post #23
neilalexander wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did read the article, yes, and it is clear to me that this is a bug, not a feature. Ofcom were suddenly able to find a "novel reading" when directed to do so by a court as a means to temporarily make the problem go away and to avoid having to weaken the legislation. 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…

The UK has "parliamentary supremacy" which means legislation passed by the parliament overrules everything else. If the court determines the legislation has a problem, it goes back to parliament to make sure parliament intended a certain interpretation, but parliament can either change the law, or they can say the court is wrong and the law stands.

Ofcom's interpretation and enforcement of a law is not immune from judicial review, however. The courts can rule that Ofcom misinterpreted the law or acted outwith their remit or didn't have the necessary legal foundation for a decision. At which point Parliament have to consider whether or not to revise the law or whether to leave their primary enforcer with their hands tied.

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#28

Post by nyeah »

tialaramex wrote: post #24
bsimpson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As my dad told us every time we crossed a bridge when we were kids: "Tolls are a ratchet - they only move in one direction."

Because England is very old it has a whole bunch of things which did charge a toll and then that expired, so, nope. It does also have situations where people go "Hey, this toll bridge was built 50 years ago, surely the tolls should be abolished" and the people who built the bridge are like "Nope. See, here's the press about it 50 years ago saying what a great idea it is to have the tolls be slightly lower but perpetu…

Some folks might consider 500 years "permanent."

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#29

Post by joe_mamba »

arjie wrote: post #19

I wonder what the difference in legal traditions is between the US and the Old World. The latter have a lot of "Yes, you're technically in trouble under the guidelines the enforcement authority rules using but they're going to make an exception for you, for now" and the former have a lot of "Yes, the spirit was to block this kind of thing but the letter of the law is that you do get away with it". What informed this…

Probably because the US was founded by the immigrants who fled because they hated the way the system worked in their original countries, and designed a system that's diametral opposed to that, for better and for worse.
Post reply on HN