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

141–150 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#141

Post by anon-3988 »

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…

This after the gaffe with the postal services, we are going to see some innocent folks being branded.

In general, I think we need a shift in society to say "yea, screw those kids". We don't put 20km/h limits everywhere because there's a non-zero chance that we might kill a kid. Its the cost of doing business.

Having privacy MEANS that it is difficult to catch bad people. That is just the price. Just swallow it and live with it.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#142

Post by arrowsmith »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #133
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…

> Wikimedia should block UK access. That will get the attention of media and popularity contest politicians might change their mind. Or they could respect the democratic decisions of the countries they do business in? I'm quite critical of the implementation of this legislation but the idea of an American company throwing their weight around trying to influence policy decisions in the UK gives me the ick. Fair enough…

Is it "democratic" when both parties agree on everything of substance and elections don't change anything no matter who wins? Because that's how "democracy" has worked in the UK for at least as long as I've been alive.

Also, no-one asked for this bill, both parties support it, it received basically no debate or scrutiny and was presented as a fait accompli. Where's the democracy exactly?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#143

Post by nonethewiser »

layer8 wrote: post #8

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

The whole idea that the UK government, or anyone, can distinguish between "worthy" and "unworthy" exceptions is absurd in itself. The fact that they recognize there are exceptions blows a hole in the whole thing.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#144

Post by nonethewiser »

throw7 wrote: post #95

If UK really believes in their ideology then they just need to copy China and implement the China Firewall™ for the UK. FYI, Wikimedia Foundation just wants a carve out/exception to be able to opt out of category 1 duties.

How would they collect fines in this scenario?

To be clear I totally agree with you. But they are playing a game.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#145

Post by mytailorisrich »

Henchman21 wrote: post #127
mytailorisrich wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I have just described how the public drives the democratic process to ensure everyone gets a voice, not just whoever shouts the loudest. That's the opposite of ignoring the public.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#146

Post by Perz1val »

ndr wrote: post #91
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…

Does WP do this anywhere else? I wonder what happens if they simply don't comply. Will the UK at any point ask ISPs to ban Wikipedia?

I think just getting blocked is no big deal, but they'll probably get fined as well, that is the problem

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#147

Post by extraisland »

cm2012 wrote: post #126
extraisland wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> All polling has problems like this, but YouGov has the same methodology for everything and usually gets within a margin of error of +-8.

The way the very question was asked is a problem in itself. It is flawed and will lead to particular result.

> if they have an especially bad sample, the UK probably really does support the law

The issue is that the public often doesn't understand the scope of the law. Those that do are almost always opposed to it.

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

It isn't about the pornography. This is why conversations about this are frustrating.

I am worried about the surveillance aspect of it. I go online because I am pseudo-anonymous and I can speak more frankly to people about things that I care about to people who share similar concerns.

I don't like how the law came into place, the scope of the law, the privacy concerns and what the law does in practice.

Even if you don't buy any of that. There is a whole slew of other issues with it. Especially identity theft.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#148

Post by nonethewiser »

DonaldFisk wrote: post #46
cft wrote: post #3

If the UK orders a Wikipedia block to its ISPs, it would be a good thing, to raise public awareness of the OSA. Wikipedia should do nothing and wait.

From about ten years ago, ISPs were required to block web sites which were unsuitable for children by default . Any ISP's customer (the person paying for internet access, who would therefore be over 18) could ask for the block to be removed. Requiring individual web sites to block access was unnecessary if the intention was to prevent children accessing those sites.

>Requiring individual web sites to block access was unnecessary if the intention was to prevent children accessing those sites.

Hmm. So Reddit, Youtube, etc. would be blocked by ISPs by default?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#149

Post by nonethewiser »

crimsoneer wrote: post #125
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....

Ah yes, what about the US.

Which law are you talking about by the way?

I was mostly familiar with laws that required porn companies to verify their user's age. That is a lot more targeted and less offensive than UK Online Safety Act Regulations IMO. I mean it's already illegal to distribute porn to minors - that's just requiring them to enforce it at the expense of porn watcher's anonymity. Whereas the UK Online Safety Act is more like a backdoor for content moderation across the internet.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#150

Post by nemomarx »

crimsoneer wrote: post #125
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....

I think those age verification laws don't target as many sites though, right? not Wikipedia at least
Post reply on HN