Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#121

Post by extraisland » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 4:20 PM UTC

phpnode wrote: post #85

entuno wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those petitions aren't really worth anything - governments have ignored ones with over six million signatures before. And they also ignored this one a few years back that had just under 700,000 signatures to "make verified ID a requirement for opening a social media account": https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/575833 Ironically, the primary reason they gave for rejecting it was: > However, restricting…

The other point is that recent polls suggest the British public are overwhelmingly in support of this legislation [0], which is not reflected in most of the narrative we see online. Whether they support how it has been implemented is a different matter, but the desire to do something is clear. [0] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...

People constantly cite this poll as it is proof that British people want this.

You cannot trust the YouGov polling. It is flawed.

> Despite the sophisticated methodology, the main drawback faced by YouGov, Ashcroft, and other UK pollsters is their recruitment strategy: pollsters generally recruit potential respondents via self-selected internet panels. The American Association of Public Opinion Research cautions that pollsters should avoid gathering panels like this because they can be unrepresentative of the electorate as a whole. The British Polling Council’s inquiry into the industry’s 2015 failings raised similar concerns. Trying to deal with these sample biases is one of the motivations behind YouGov and Ashcroft’s adoption of the modelling strategies discussed above.

https://theconversation.com/its-sophisticated-but-can-you-be...

Even if the aforementioned problems didn't exist with the polling. It has been known for quite a while that how you ask a question changes the results. The question you linked was the following.

> From everything you have seen and heard, do you support or oppose the recent rules requiring age verification to access websites that may contain pornographic material?

Most people would think "age verification to view pornography". They won't think about all the other things that maybe caught in that net.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#122

Post by extraisland » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 4:22 PM UTC

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #102

phpnode wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other point is that recent polls suggest the British public are overwhelmingly in support of this legislation [0], which is not reflected in most of the narrative we see online. Whether they support how it has been implemented is a different matter, but the desire to do something is clear. [0] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...

> Whether they support how it has been implemented is a different matter, but the desire to do something is clear. Isn't this the whole story of government policy? The stated policy so rarely actually leads to the hoped-for result.

They always name it the exact opposite of what it does.

If they name something the "Protect Children Act". You can be sure that what it does is put Children in Danger.

That means that on the face of it, it is difficult for someone to oppose.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#123

Post by mapt » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 4:22 PM UTC

bbor wrote: post #75

echelon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Pretty telling what speech on the left and the right looks like. For the left, it's: > Eugene Debs, for example, was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act after he spoke at a rally for peaceful workers telling them they were “fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder”... Likewise, in 1919, Schenck v. U.S., the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Socialist Party member after he sen…

The next time somebody says the phrase "Fire in a crowded theater" to support free speech restrictions, remind them that this phrase comes from Schenck vs US (argued 1919), which was about whether you have the right to distribute antiwar pamphlets.

At issue was whether antiwar speech can constitutionally be punished as espionage, which can be a capital crime under US law, punishable by death.

Whether you're allowed to to speak in ways that Congress considers too close to 'creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent'. Whether you could criminalize speech deemed disloyal or detrimental to the war effort.

Woodrow Wilson was the 28th president of the United States, serving from 1913 to 1921, and among other things, his administration dramatically expanded the precedential authority of the federal government in authoritarian directions, particularly with regards to things like surveillance and censorship. The Sedition Act of 1918 "broadened the scope of prohibited speech to include any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the U.S. government, flag, or military", and the Espionage Act of 1917 "made it illegal to interfere with the military, obstruct recruitment, or convey information that could harm the U.S. or aid its enemies. "

It took the Warren and Burger courts of the 60's/70's to reel this back in and re-establish many of the Constitutional rights you were taught about. It's unclear whether the pendulum will swing back the other way precedentially, but doubtless Trump would prefer carte blanche to target dissidents.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#124

Post by Henchman21 » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 4:26 PM UTC

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #102

phpnode wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other point is that recent polls suggest the British public are overwhelmingly in support of this legislation [0], which is not reflected in most of the narrative we see online. Whether they support how it has been implemented is a different matter, but the desire to do something is clear. [0] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...

> Whether they support how it has been implemented is a different matter, but the desire to do something is clear. Isn't this the whole story of government policy? The stated policy so rarely actually leads to the hoped-for result.

That’s because the bedrock principle on which modern government is based is…

drum roll

Lie whenever it’s convenient because the public are children anyway and won’t or can’t understand.

Through this lens many things make more sense. They’re comfortable with lying because there are zero repercussions for lying.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#125

Post by crimsoneer » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 4:27 PM UTC

andiareso wrote: post #19

All US companies should boycott the UK in solidarity. See how fast the regulators walk back the bill.

The UK law is significantly less stringent and better thought out than equivalent age verification laws already in place in a bunch of US states....

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#126

Post by cm2012 » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 4:28 PM UTC

extraisland wrote: post #121

phpnode wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other point is that recent polls suggest the British public are overwhelmingly in support of this legislation [0], which is not reflected in most of the narrative we see online. Whether they support how it has been implemented is a different matter, but the desire to do something is clear. [0] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...

People constantly cite this poll as it is proof that British people want this. You cannot trust the YouGov polling. It is flawed. > Despite the sophisticated methodology, the main drawback faced by YouGov, Ashcroft, and other UK pollsters is their recruitment strategy: pollsters generally recruit potential respondents via self-selected internet panels. The American Association of Public Opinion Research cautions that…

All polling has problems like this, but YouGov has the same methodology for everything and usually gets within a margin of error of +-8. Even if they have an especially bad sample, the UK probably really does support the law.

Think about how many people are less comfortable with porn than tech interested males between age 18 and 40.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#127

Post by Henchman21 » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 4:29 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #112

entuno wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those petitions aren't really worth anything - governments have ignored ones with over six million signatures before. And they also ignored this one a few years back that had just under 700,000 signatures to "make verified ID a requirement for opening a social media account": https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/575833 Ironically, the primary reason they gave for rejecting it was: > However, restricting…

It's quite right that petitions are (mostly) ignored in Parliamentary matters, IMHO. MPs are elected to Parliament, they get input from their constituents. Bills are debated, revised, voted on multiple times. There are consultations and input from a board range of view points. A petition is in effect trying to shout over all that process from the street outside.

Is it quite right that the public gets ignored all the time?

How do you force your representatives to actually represent their constituents?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#128

Post by scratcheee » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 4:29 PM UTC

Ravus wrote: post #97

phpnode wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other point is that recent polls suggest the British public are overwhelmingly in support of this legislation [0], which is not reflected in most of the narrative we see online. Whether they support how it has been implemented is a different matter, but the desire to do something is clear. [0] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...

It's sadly an example of terrible leading question bias, to the point where I'm surprised that it even got a 22% oppose rate. The percentages would change dramatically were one to write it as, "From everything you have seen and heard, do you support or oppose the recent rules requiring adults to upload their id or a face photo before accessing any website that allows user to user interaction?" Both questions are fact…

There’s a classic yes minister skit on how dubious polls can be: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks&t=45s

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#129

Post by NitpickLawyer » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 4:30 PM UTC

willtemperley wrote: post #108

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…

Yes. HTTP 451 "Unavailable For Legal Reasons" was made for this moment.

No, they should block with a very visible message, tailored to the british public. I know what that status message means, you know it, but the general public doesn't. They need the black page with big letters they used before with sopa/pipa/etc.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#130

Post by Henchman21 » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 4:32 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #42

thomastjeffery wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet this looks nothing like their reaction to SOPA and PIPA. They even explicitly state that Wikimedia is not against the legislation on the whole. > The Wikimedia Foundation shares the UK government’s commitment to promoting online environments where everyone can safely participate. The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. R…

[flagged]

I’m so tired of this false divide. Its the wealthy vs the rest of us.

I don’t want to go right or left. I want to move forward and leave this stupid, stupid mess behind.