The Online Safety Act is a hideous piece of legislation. I hope Wikipedia block the UK.
(I am a UK citizen).
Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
171–180 of 887 posts
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#172I wonder why Wikipedia does not ban access from the UK due to this ruling ? I think doing that will get them an exemption rather quickly.
My read of the article is that it's still an ongoing legal battle, even after this one judgement.
So maybe yes, but maybe no, depending on how things pan out in subsequent rulings?
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because, as someone living in the UK, the only way people here are going to realise what's going on and apply meaningful pressure to the government is if these organisations force us to. And because once they've given up on one country, they'll give up on the rest just as easily.
Is there backlash for this sort of thing? When they did their blackout thing some years back, a lot of people who were sympathetic to the cause were also highly annoyed at the disruption to their workflows, to the point that if it had gone on much longer it might have backfired on Wiki. I've seen similar affects with protesters blocking roads and such. I always wonder if it's just a small minority or if it happens mo…
What would the backlash possibly be? Someone in the UK starting their own censored Wikipedia would be a good thing in the long and short run.
Backlash but positive backlash.
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#174I don't understand why Wikipedia would fall under Category 1. Am I looking at the wrong thing, or does the definition in 3.(1) not require the service to use an algorithmic recommendation system (which Wikipedia does not do)? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348267174
I'm not sure if this Wikipedia's official policy but at https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/wikipedias-nonprofit-hos... they do say:
> Definition of content recommender systems: Having any “algorithm” on the site that “affects” what content someone might “encounter”, is seemingly enough to qualify popular websites for Category 1. As written, this could even cover tools that are used to combat harmful content. We, and many other stakeholders, have failed to convince UK rulemakers to clarify that features that help keep services free of bad content — like the New Pages Feed used by Wikipedia article reviewers—should not trigger Category 1 status. Other rarely-used features, like Wikipedia’s Translation Recommendations, are also at risk.
> Content forwarding or sharing functionality: If a popular app or website also has content “forwarding or sharing” features, its chances of ending up in Category 1 are dramatically increased. The Regulations fail to define what they mean by “forwarding or sharing functionality”: features on Wikipedia (like the one allowing users to choose Wikipedia’s daily “Featured Picture”) could be caught.
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#175I don't understand why Wikipedia would fall under Category 1. Am I looking at the wrong thing, or does the definition in 3.(1) not require the service to use an algorithmic recommendation system (which Wikipedia does not do)? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348267174
Wikipedia is based in San Francisco. Why can't they just tell the UK to pound sand?
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#176Kind of funny after the authors of the law complained service providers were interpreting it overzealously.
No, if Wikipedia falls under it anything meaningful does. You have once again failed to understand the internet.
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#177I don't understand why Wikipedia would fall under Category 1. Am I looking at the wrong thing, or does the definition in 3.(1) not require the service to use an algorithmic recommendation system (which Wikipedia does not do)? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348267174
I'm not sure if this Wikipedia's official policy but at https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/wikipedias-nonprofit-hos... they do say: > Definition of content recommender systems: Having any “algorithm” on the site that “affects” what content someone might “encounter”, is seemingly enough to qualify popular websites for Category 1. As written, this could even cover tools that are used to combat harmful content. We, and…
"Content forwarding or sharing functionality" seems like it would cover any website with a URL.
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#178I don't understand why Wikipedia would fall under Category 1. Am I looking at the wrong thing, or does the definition in 3.(1) not require the service to use an algorithmic recommendation system (which Wikipedia does not do)? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348267174
As I understand it, they refer to some of the moderation tools and the likes, which are not part of the typical Wikipedia experience.
Everybody including the judges seem to agree this is dumb but it's the current law.
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#179I don't understand why Wikipedia would fall under Category 1. Am I looking at the wrong thing, or does the definition in 3.(1) not require the service to use an algorithmic recommendation system (which Wikipedia does not do)? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348267174
I agree, it does seem odd. They do promote bits of their content on the main page, I assume with an algorithm, but it's hardly like a social media feed.
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#180Wikimedia 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…
Well, that would be tricky, since Wikipedia is not a business, and is nor is it specifically American. (Other than a foundation in the US that runs the servers) . There are Wikipedias in many of the world's languages!
If the UK effectively bans public wikis above a certain size (even if by accident), then it is the law of the land that Wikipedia is banned. Or at least the english wikipedia, which is indeed very large. And if it is banned, then it must block access for the uk, under those conditions. Depending on the exact rules, possibly the uk could make do with the Swahili wikipedia?
That said, the problem here is that it is a public wiki of a certain size. One option might be for Wikipedia to implement quotas for the UK, so that they don't fall under category 1 rules.
Another option would be to talk with Ofcon and get things sorted that way.