They should just block all UK gov IPs in protest
As a Brit, ultimately I think this is the only thing that's going to get through to the government and public.
[deleted]
Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations
31–40 of 192 posts
Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations
#32I'm skeptical this goes anywhere legally speaking. The categorisation regulations are a statutory instrument rather than primary legislation, so they _are_ open to judicial review. But the Wikimedia foundation haven't presented an argument as to why the regulations are unlawful, just an argument for why they disagree with them. It should be noted that even if they succeed (which seems a long shot), this wouldn't affe…
I can't see any language in the statutory instrument suggesting anyone had any intention of applying it to Wikimedia? The most likely outcome is the court will reassure them of that. This might help other people running similar websites by citing the case rather than having to pay for all the experts but isn't going to magically stop it applying to Meta as intended.
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.
Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations
#33In related news, the Labour party is already considering banning VPNs. We almost got like two days of Online Safety Act in effect.
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/labour-ban-vpn-online-safety...
Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations
#34This is full of contradictions and both-sides-of-the-mouth speech. You can't coherently argue for an "open internet" "for everyone", and simultaneously plead exceptionalism for your own website, due its special virtues[0]. An "open internet" for websites with sterling reputations is a closed internet. It's an internet where censorship segregates the desirable from undesirable; where websites must plead their case to…
This is a fine sentiment, could you also please provide an alternative approach? The law has passed, Wikipedia has to enforce that law but don’t wish to because of privacy concerns. What should Wikimedia now do? Give up? Ignore the laws of the UK? Shutdown in the UK? What exactly are the options for wikimedia?
> Shutdown in the UK?
Yes. This is what every single large company which is subject to this distopian law should do. They should do everything they can to block any traffic from the UK, until the law is repelled.
Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think most Wikimedia users would consider it inapropriate to mix fundraising and public policy initiatives.
They previously did a 24 hour blackout to protest SOPA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA...
Literally more then a decade ago. Also they didn't mix it together with fundraiser.
Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations
#36I'm skeptical this goes anywhere legally speaking. The categorisation regulations are a statutory instrument rather than primary legislation, so they _are_ open to judicial review. But the Wikimedia foundation haven't presented an argument as to why the regulations are unlawful, just an argument for why they disagree with them. It should be noted that even if they succeed (which seems a long shot), this wouldn't affe…
The problem with the focus being on porn behind age verification as the main effect, is that it ignores all the other effects. Closing community forums and wikis. Uncertainty about blog comments.
It is actually (as noted in many previous discussion about the Online Safety Act) pushing people to using big tech platforms, because they can no longer afford the compliance cost and risk of running their own.
Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations
#37All this is of course bullshit. The only response that would have a chance of succeeding would have been if most websites collectively just blocked everyone from the UK. Imagine if 60-70% of the internet just stopped working for UK People. The law would be toppled tomorrow. Every Company that implemented any compliance is a traitor to the free internet and should be treated as such.
Most websites, for most people, are big tech. Big tech loves this regulation because imposing compliance costs reduces competition.
Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a fine sentiment, could you also please provide an alternative approach? The law has passed, Wikipedia has to enforce that law but don’t wish to because of privacy concerns. What should Wikimedia now do? Give up? Ignore the laws of the UK? Shutdown in the UK? What exactly are the options for wikimedia?
> Shutdown in the UK? Yes. This is what every single large company which is subject to this distopian law should do. They should do everything they can to block any traffic from the UK, until the law is repelled.
large companies love this law.
By imposing costs and risk on self hosting, and reducing the number of supplies (because many small and medium companies and organisation will block the UK), it reduces competition.
Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a fine sentiment, could you also please provide an alternative approach? The law has passed, Wikipedia has to enforce that law but don’t wish to because of privacy concerns. What should Wikimedia now do? Give up? Ignore the laws of the UK? Shutdown in the UK? What exactly are the options for wikimedia?
Warn the UK users during the grace period as best as they can. And after the grace period... yeah, I think blocking UK IPs is the "correct" thing to do. If the government doesn't make them an exception than they'll have to do that, correct or not, anyway.
I think the people of the UK have little or nothing to do with this.
UK is a representative democracy meaning that voters get a voice every X years to vote for a representative that they assume will act in their favour and on their behalf.
What this representative does in their time in power is very much left to the representative and not the voters.
On the other hand, if this were to be a direct democracy then the voters would have been asked before this law was voted on. For example, a referendum might well have been held.
Perhaps a more nuanced approach would be to block all IPs of government organisations - difficult but far more approriate.
Re: Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations
#40In related news, the Labour party is already considering banning VPNs. We almost got like two days of Online Safety Act in effect. https://www.gbnews.com/politics/labour-ban-vpn-online-safety...
I hate the Online Safety Act as much as the next person, but:
- Labour have made no plans to ban VPNs.
- One MP wanted to add a clause for a government review into the impact of VPNs on the bill after 6 months, with no direction on what that would mean.
- I have no idea if this clause actually got added, but it'd make sense. If you're going to introduce a stupid law you should at least plan to review if the stupid law is having any impact.
- GB news is bottom of the barrel propaganda.