Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

Post by password321 » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 5:09 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...

Post by zimpenfish » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 5:11 PM UTC

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…

Post by nonethewiser » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 5:15 PM UTC

knorker wrote: post #86

What I hate most about this latest push is that people in their 30s are trying to convince us all that blocking children's access to porn and such is the issue. As if most people don't agree with that in the abstract. Not only people in their 30s, but it's who I see making a fuss about it. Presumably because they are now parents of children newly reaching this age. They are completely ignoring that they are entering…

Post by fluidcruft » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 5:20 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #114

This is about the duties of a "category 1 service" under the Online Safety Act. Wikipedia is one mostly because of their size, I believe. These duties are quite onerous, and over the top (someone might say that the government is seeing adults are real "snowflakes" these days): Large user-to-user services, known as Category 1 services, will be required to offer adult users tools which, if they choose to use, will give…

Post by echelon » Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 5:26 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #77

echelon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I am so much not willing to listen to what heritage specifically has to say on the topic. Could you pick less hypocritical and less eager to lie resources to "definitely not pick up on left totally both side"? Heritage foundation literally where Project 2025 was created and published. Also, I definitely love the track record of "the measure of free speech is your willingness to defend nazi and never use words to supp…