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

171–180 of 192 posts

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#171

Post by Jiro »

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?

Because the government is lying and this is about spying on the populace, not about parental control.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#172

Post by kemayo »

cormorant wrote: post #77

Can anyone explain how Wikipedia supposedly is in Category 1? [1] And if it marginally is, how come they cannot just turn off their "content recommender system"? Perhaps an example is the auto-generated "Related articles" that appear in the footer on mobile only? [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/226/regulation/3/ma...

The definition is:

> In paragraph (1), a “content recommender system” means a system, used by the provider of a regulated user-to-user service in respect of the user-to-user part of that service, that uses algorithms which by means of machine learning or other techniques determines, or otherwise affects, the way in which regulated user-generated content of a user, whether alone or with other content, may be encountered by other users of the service.

Speculating wildly, I think a bunch of the moderation / patroller tools might count. They help to find revisions ("user-generated content") that need further review from other editors ("other users").

There's not much machine learning happening (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ORES), but "other techniques" seems like it'd cover basically-anything up to and including "here's the list of revisions that have violated user-provided rules recently" (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter).

(Disclaimer: I work for the WMF. I know literally nothing about this court case or how this law applies.)

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#173

Post by phendrenad2 »

exasperaited wrote: post #162
phendrenad2 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When all you have is a whataboutism, everything looks like a nail?

It’s not whataboutism. It’s exasperated cleanupyourownbackyardism. That HN collapses into hysteria over the slightest thing happening on the other side of the Atlantic while studiously avoiding any discussion of homegrown political insanity is basically laughable. You know nothing about us; as always we are essentially forced to know all about you in detail so we can fend it all off.

> You know nothing about us

And I'd like to keep it that way, which is why I'm all in favour of the option to geo-block the UK if the UK's laws prove onerous.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#174

Post by jalapenos »

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…

Taking tyrants' words at face value is collaboration in their tyranny.

This is nothing to do with children, those utterances are just bare faced cover for increased surveillance and control.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#175

Post by exasperaited »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #173
exasperaited wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not whataboutism. It’s exasperated cleanupyourownbackyardism. That HN collapses into hysteria over the slightest thing happening on the other side of the Atlantic while studiously avoiding any discussion of homegrown political insanity is basically laughable. You know nothing about us; as always we are essentially forced to know all about you in detail so we can fend it all off.

> You know nothing about us And I'd like to keep it that way, which is why I'm all in favour of the option to geo-block the UK if the UK's laws prove onerous.

Ignorance is currency over there, I guess.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#176

Post by Tadpole9181 »

owisd wrote: post #155
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…

There's a cognitive dissonance to the opposition to this: a) Content controls don't work, what are the government thinking? b) This is parents' problem, they should use content controls. Individual action doesn't work because it only takes one kid in the class who doesn't have parental controls then everyone loses. There's also obvious workarounds such as VPNs and a teenager walking into a pawn shop with £50 for a se…

> Individual action doesn't work because it only takes one kid in the class who doesn't have parental controls then everyone loses.

The response to this, of course, is that many kids will be educated by their responsible parents.

They will know Santa isn't real or what sex is or why sometimes girls and boys kiss other girls and boys.

Are we going to outlaw teaching your own children about life next? Because they might "spread" the knowledge of... The real world they are about to experience and navigate?

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#177

Post by Tadpole9181 »

nsksl wrote: post #146
AngryData wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe so, but it’s better than the alternatives.

A reminder that it is a legal requirement that children get primary education. It is a crime to not give them an education.

We did that for a reason and it is undoubtedly better than the alternative.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#178

Post by topranks »

mrweasel wrote: post #125
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.

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

I do kind of wonder if it benefits Wikipedia for them to allow so much on commons.

I get it’s hard to distinguish between pornography and something that might have educational merit at the edges, and have a workable policy.

But still I can’t help but think this is not really helping.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#179

Post by mytailorisrich »

hnlmorg wrote: post #170
andybak wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no forms that need to be completed. One of us has completely misunderstood the legislation. By my reading - there's a ton of red tape and paperwork. Heck, there's a ton of work even getting to the point of understanding what work you need to do. And dismissing the fear of life-changing financial liability as "being spooked" is not helpful. I've got a open-source 3D sharing site almost ready to launch and I'…

> By my reading - there's a ton of red tape and paperwork. It might help if you referenced the section what defines those requirements. I don’t recall seeing anything that required such red tape unless there was special circumstances after the fact (for example, reporting child porn that was uploaded to your site, or responding to a police or court order). But these kinds of rules exist for freedom of information et…

In principle you need to have records of your risk assessment(s) and you need to have good T&Cs (like for GDPR, etc). But that's about it for red tape.

Templates have popped up to help with both.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations

#180

Post by makerofthings »

A lot of people in this thread seem to enjoy the taste of boot and are spending a lot of words trying to say the OSA isn't a big deal. A bit of a sad attitude for a forum called HackerNews. This is massive overreach by the government, we shouldn't have to ID ourselves to message friends on bluesky, read homebrew forums or, soon, use xbox voice chat. The government won't give up this power, it's clearly the thin end of the wedge.
Post reply on HN