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

371–380 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#371

Post by wasabi991011 »

mathiaspoint wrote: post #361
speerer wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have a constitution. It just isn't a written constitution: > The United Kingdom constitution is composed of the laws and rules that create the institutions of the state, regulate the relationships between those institutions, or regulate the relationship between the state and the individual. These laws and rules are not codified in a single, written document. Source for that quote is parliamentary: https://…

Right of course every state has a "constitution" but the contemporary connotation of the word means an enforceable law that meaningfully constrains the state's power.

The Bill of Rights or the Habeus Corpus meaningfully constrains the states power, and are cited in court proceedings.

Just because it isn't 1 document like in the US, it doesn't mean it's not a constitution.

I think what you mean by "contemporary connotation" with "American connotation".

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#372

Post by UnreachableCode »

cm2012 wrote: post #259
abustamam wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, what makes you say that the majority of HN loves porn? I've seen a few random references to it but nothing that would indicate that HN loves porn any more than any other community loves porn.

It's just a statistical correlation. Who loves porn demographically? 1) Men. 2) Men age 18-40 in particular. 3) No evidence for this but in my experience tech people tend to like porn more than others for whatever reason. So a survey of HN users would show more pro-porn respondents than a survey of the UK or the US or EU as a whole.

Tech people? I have met utter goons obsessed with porn that barely understand how their phone actually works.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#373

Post by idorosen »

To all of the commenters recommending that Wikipedia block UK visitors: This is incredibly short-sighted in the age of LLMs, where Wikipedia does not need to exist in a country in order for the benefit of its existence to be felt. Such a move would likely just drive people to obtain dubious regurgitations of Wikipedia’s (freely available) content via their favorite LLM chatbot, in my opinion.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#374

Post by ronsor »

codedokode wrote: post #353
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).

Leaving the market never works - in Russia, once another Western site or app gets blocked, several local competitors instantly pop out. That's how the market works, there are always people hungry for money.

The Russian market is artificially distorted.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#375

Post by _dain_ »

gnfargbl wrote: post #70
layer8 wrote: post #8

The underlying issue remains unaddressed if only Wikipedia-scale sites of “significant value” get special exemption.

The OSA is already written such that only very large sites are potentially caught by the most onerous rules (at least 7 million MAU for Category 1; at least 3 million MAU for Category 2B). Smaller sites are automatically exempted. This isn't to say that the OSA is a universally good thing, or that smaller sites won't be affected by it. However, this request for judicial review wasn't looking to carve out any special…

>Smaller sites are automatically exempted.

No, they're not. I don't know why people keep repeating this "7 million active users limit" idea, it's nowhere to be found in the actual rules. Tiny forums have already had to close because they didn't want to deal with the legal risk:

https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#376

Post by Tadpole9181 »

codedokode wrote: post #353
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).

Leaving the market never works - in Russia, once another Western site or app gets blocked, several local competitors instantly pop out. That's how the market works, there are always people hungry for money.

Then let them? And the UK gets a dogshit ripoff Wikipedia. Authoritarian supporters suffer, that's the hard lesson people need to understand.

This costs Wikipedia nothing - they are not funded by ads. And, in exchange, they don't get sued or any of their employees arrested.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#377

Post by uyzstvqs »

nemomarx wrote: post #217
MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. A…

there's some irony that the EU is set to have a fairly anonymous solution like next year. they could have waited or tried to use similar tech for this, in theory

Important to note: Their anonymous solution is reported to be temporary until their digital ID system is released[1], which does not offer that same anonymity, but rather functions as a server-side OpenID-based authentication system.[2] While you can share only your age with an online service, it still creates an authorization token, which appears to remain persistent until manually removed by the user in the eID app. This would give the host of that authentication system (EU and/or governments) the ability to see which services you have shared data with, as well as a token linked to your account/session at that service. There is also no guarantee that removing an authorization will actually delete all that data in a non-recoverable way from the authentication system's servers.

[1] https://itdaily.com/news/security/eu-temporary-app-age-verif...

[2] https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1...

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#379

Post by bovermyer »

idorosen wrote: post #373

To all of the commenters recommending that Wikipedia block UK visitors: This is incredibly short-sighted in the age of LLMs, where Wikipedia does not need to exist in a country in order for the benefit of its existence to be felt. Such a move would likely just drive people to obtain dubious regurgitations of Wikipedia’s (freely available) content via their favorite LLM chatbot, in my opinion.

How is the state of the art as far as blocking LLMs from accessing a site?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#380

Post by Lerc »

pnw wrote: post #368
Lerc wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a country where 91.78% of the population voted for a referendum that bought back hard labour in prisons. As one of the few who voted against it I have yet to encounter a single person who voted for it who both supports hard labour and realised that was in the question being asked.

Why do you claim the 1999 referendum reintroduced hard labor in NZ prisons? I've never seen anything to that effect. The reforms were related to bail, victims rights and parole.

It did not reintroduce hard labour. People voted to reintroduce hard labour. The referendum was non binding,
Post reply on HN