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

201–210 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#201

Post by integralid »

oconnore wrote: post #175
ndriscoll wrote: post #158

I 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?

Adding to what others said, they can just let UK block Wikipedia, but as a foundation that tries to share knowledge I think they're obliged to try avoid that. So they're doing just that right now, by challenging the law.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#202

Post by johnnyanmac »

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.

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

Are you suggesting that techies do not have any sexual appetite? That runs counter to many stereotypes I've encountered

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#203

Post by Kim_Bruning »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #195
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

By Wikipedia I meant the foundation of course. I'm not sure localisation automatically makes them a multinational entity. Windows is available in Chinese but we both understand that Microsoft is not a Chinese company. It is fair to say it's not a business, but essentially there's no difference to my feeling that private entities from other countries shouldn't be throwing their weight around in local democracy. Do you…

The Wikimedia Foundation is not in charge of the Wikipedias per se (though as always, once you have a central organization, it starts stretching its tentacles) .

Wikipedias are not merely localized versions of each other, they're truly independent.

If you happen to know two languages and want to quickly rack up edits (if that's your sport), arbitraging knowledge between two Wikipedias is one way to go.

Wikipedia is not throwing their weight around. They are merely pointing out that the law happens to make their operating model illegal, and surely that can't be the intent. If they are illegal, they cannot operate. Is "very well, we disagree, but if you truly insist, we shall obey the law and leave" throwing your weight around?

And yes, I get the impression that the UK's letter of the law could lead to a categorization with rules that (a) Wikipedia simply cannot comply with, and still be a Wikipedia. So in that case Wikipedia would be effectively banned.

But we're not there yet. Hence the use of proper legal channels, including this court case. Ofcom is expected to make their first categorizations this summer, so this is timely.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#204

Post by vaylian »

bakugo wrote: post #192
vaylian wrote: post #182

Wikipedia has been introduced as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Anyone can publish problematic material or false information. But it's also Wikipedia's greatest strength that it has been so open to basically everyone and that gave us a wide range of really good articles that rivaled the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia is a product of the free internet. It is a product of a world that many politicians still…

> And they also do it to score brownie points with their conservative voting base. Care to remind me what side of the political spectrum was desperately trying to silence all health-related discourse that did not match the government's agenda just a few years ago?

By "conservative" I mean less digitally-minded people who are typically older. You have these people on the left, in the center and on the right along the classical political axis.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#205

Post by johnnyanmac »

__oh_es wrote: post #94
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...

Odd - they also believe it wont be effective https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...

The moment the Russia Ukraine war hit, the top 10 apps in Russia was half VPNs.

As long as websites don't want to lock out any user without an account, and as long as vpns exist, it'll be hard to enforce any of this. At least for now, that's one line big tech won't let them cross easily.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#206

Post by watwut »

echelon wrote: post #159
watwut wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure, here are some liberal leaning sources saying things you might not like if you believe these things, including vile things said by extremist groups, should be censored: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://archive.is/TpU8Q https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/31/how-the-resurge... Please note: I 100% abhor white supremacy and any kind of racism. But you can and should defend t…

> We need to support the speech of all groups we detest - baby eaters, satanists, polygamists, racists, sexists, murderers, capitalists, Marxists, televangelists, etc. - in order to champion free speech for all.

Except that, in practice the defense of self styled free speech advocates did not extended to left, gay, radical feminists, progressives anyone not far right.

In what world is NY times left leaning.

> If you're uneasy about this, remember that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from judgement.

Somehow that part did applied to only selected groups. Criticising right and conservatives was treated as grave danger to free speech by the self styled free speech advocates.

The big crisis of free speech is never about speech rights of anyone left of center. Literally even now.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#208

Post by johnnyanmac »

password321 wrote: post #151
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...

A good reminder that certain circles are just the vocal minority and under the surface society is mostly just NPCs.

Not a great lesson to take here.

1. Policy by default will always be planned and implemented by a minority. As well as those who comment to policy, or online.

2. You'll have some 20-30% of people who will say yes to anything if you phrase it the right way.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#209

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #185
MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #171

The Online Safety Act is a hideous piece of legislation. I hope Wikipedia block the UK. (I am a UK citizen).

Act like an authoritarian regime, get treated like other authoritarian regimes.

For the record, I'm not actually against age verification for certain content. But it would have to be:

1) private - anonymous (don't know who is requesting access) and unlinkable (don't know if the same user makes repeated requests or is the same user on other services).

2) widely available and extremely easy to register and integrate.

The current situation is that it's not easy, or private, or cheap to integrate. And the measures they say they will accept are trivially easy to bypass - so what's the point?

I worked in a startup that satisfied point 1 back in 2015. The widely available bit didn't come off though when we ran out of runway.

Post reply on HN