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

Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

wikimediafoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 192 posts

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#121

Post by karel-3d »

pjc50 wrote: post #28
chippiewill wrote: post #4

I'm skeptical this goes anywhere legally speaking. 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, just an argument for why they disagree with them. It should be noted that even if they succeed (which seems a long shot), this wouldn't affe…

More detail: https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/wikipedias-nonprofit-hos... It seems to be a fairly standard judicial review: if OFCOM(?) class them as "category 1", they are under a very serious burden, so they want the categorization decision reviewed in court.

I think it will be very hard to write a definition that excludes wikipedia and includes (and I am quoting the article) "many of the services UK society is actually concerned about, like misogynistic hate websites".

Very interested how this goes.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#122

Post by tracker1 »

hermitcrab wrote: post #114
supermatt wrote: post #99

Why can't these measures be handled via parental control? Children are using mobiles and tablets almost exclusively, both major providers of which supply tools for parental administration. Content filtering is already facilitated by existing parental control. Mobile browsers could be made to issue a header if the user is under a certain age. Mobile apps could have access to a flag. Parents should be responsible for p…

>Why can't these measures be handled via parental control? That would be the ideal. Unfortunately, many parents do not have the skills and/or motivation to manage their children's devices.

For that matter, how many kids manage their parents' devices. Maybe less so today, but for a long time, a lot of children were far more tech savvy than their parents. The contrast between my grandmothers when they were still around was stark. One never fell for anything... the other, I was cleaning malware it felt like quarterly.

My parents for a long time used their neighbor's wifi, despite having their own, because they didn't remember the password.

That said, having the carrier assign certain devices marked as "child" or "adult" or even with a DoB stamp that would change the flag when they became an adult might not be a bad thing. While intrusive would still be better than the forced ID path that some states and countries are striving towards.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#123

Post by karel-3d »

ZiiS wrote: post #21
chippiewill wrote: post #4

I'm skeptical this goes anywhere legally speaking. 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, just an argument for why they disagree with them. It should be noted that even if they succeed (which seems a long shot), this wouldn't affe…

I can't see any language in the statutory instrument suggesting anyone had any intention of applying it to Wikimedia? The most likely outcome is the court will reassure them of that. This might help other people running similar websites by citing the case rather than having to pay for all the experts but isn't going to magically stop it applying to Meta as intended.

It's in the Medium article.

Scroll to "Who falls under Category 1"

https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/wikipedias-nonprofit-hos...

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#124

Post by Symbiote »

miohtama wrote: post #115
lysace wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikimedia hosts what UK puritans consider pornographic content. A lot of it. Often in high quality and with a permissible license. I would link to relevant meta pages but I want to be able travel through LHR.

A kid can go to Wikipedia and read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex

They can also go to the library and read the encyclopedia.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#125

Post by mrweasel »

lysace wrote: post #32
ZiiS wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't see any language in the statutory instrument suggesting anyone had any intention of applying it to Wikimedia? The most likely outcome is the court will reassure them of that. This might help other people running similar websites by citing the case rather than having to pay for all the experts but isn't going to magically stop it applying to Meta as intended.

Wikimedia hosts what UK puritans consider pornographic content. A lot of it. Often in high quality and with a permissible license. I would link to relevant meta pages but I want to be able travel through LHR.

To be fair, Wikimedia/Wikipedia also hosts a full copy of "Debbie Does Dallas" does to a fluke of copyright. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Does_Dallas

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#126

Post by AngryData »

nsksl wrote: post #110
supermatt wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> parents cba rearing their children And THAT is the problem that they should be tackling.

Not necessarily. If they want to have uneducated children, let them.

That is a terrible attitude about education. You are essentially condemning those kids and future generations to a shittier society and shittier lives.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#127

Post by hnlmorg »

graemep wrote: post #36
chippiewill wrote: post #4

I'm skeptical this goes anywhere legally speaking. 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, just an argument for why they disagree with them. It should be noted that even if they succeed (which seems a long shot), this wouldn't affe…

The problem with the focus being on porn behind age verification as the main effect, is that it ignores all the other effects. Closing community forums and wikis. Uncertainty about blog comments. It is actually (as noted in many previous discussion about the Online Safety Act) pushing people to using big tech platforms, because they can no longer afford the compliance cost and risk of running their own.

Those sort of sites already had better moderation than big tech because they’d have their own smaller team of volunteer moderators.

I suspect any smaller site that claims the Online Safety Act was a reason they closed, needed to close due to other complications. For example an art site that features occasional (or more) artistic nudes. Stuff that normal people wouldn’t consider mature content but the site maintainers wouldn’t want to take the risk on.

Either way, whether I’m right or wrong here, I still think the Online Safety Act is grotesque piece of legislation.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#128

Post by AngryData »

tracker1 wrote: post #122
hermitcrab wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why can't these measures be handled via parental control? That would be the ideal. Unfortunately, many parents do not have the skills and/or motivation to manage their children's devices.

For that matter, how many kids manage their parents' devices. Maybe less so today, but for a long time, a lot of children were far more tech savvy than their parents. The contrast between my grandmothers when they were still around was stark. One never fell for anything... the other, I was cleaning malware it felt like quarterly. My parents for a long time used their neighbor's wifi, despite having their own, because…

That may have been a half decent excuse for parents 2 decades ago, but it isn't very good now when current parents grew up in the computer age with computers at school and in the vast majority of homes and even 90 year olds are using smart phones daily.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#129

Post by AngryData »

DaSHacka wrote: post #106
freeone3000 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a shame it wasn’t able to get them all.

I agree, an adtech monopoly is surely much better for society

I think they were saying that all advertising is crap and likely 99% of it shouldn't exist.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#130

Post by hnlmorg »

ijk wrote: post #82
mytailorisrich wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very skeptical that the Online Safety Act forces community forums and wikis to close. By and large the Act forces forums to have strong moderation and perhaps manual checks before publishing files and pictures uploaded by users, and that's about it. Likewise, I suspect that most geoblocks are out of misplaced fear not actual analysis.

It has caused many community forums to close, past tense. Many cited the uncertainty about what is actually required, the potential high cost of compliance, the danger of failing to correctly follow the rules they're not certain about, and the lack of governmental clarity as significant aspects of their decision to close. The fear may be misplaced, but the UK government has failed to convince people of that.

It was misplaced but the UK government has a long history of incompetence when it comes to legislation regarding the use of technology. So I cannot blame people being erring on the side of caution.

I mean, it’s not like this particular piece of legislation isn’t stupid to begin with. So I cannot blame people for assuming the worst.

Post reply on HN