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

41–50 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#41

Post by handelaar »

exasperaited wrote: post #27
flipbrad wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of what you are posting is not true. Take for instance your claim that "Ofcom is an industry self-regulation body"

Ofcom is a government-approved industry regulator, strictly speaking. It is what in the UK gets called a Quango. A quasi-non-government-organisation. It is not a government body. It is not under direct ministerial control. It gets some funds from government (but mostly through fees levied on industry): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c8eec40f0b... But it operates within industry as the industry's re…

Your claim that Ofcom is in any way a "self-regulation body" is untrue. And frankly also a straight-up insane thing to say, sorry.

Ofcom was created by the UK government for the sole purpose of enforcing laws passed by the UK government [and sometimes interpreting those laws]. It acts on behalf of the State at all times, and is not empowered to do otherwise under any circumstances EVER.

You appear to be confused about what being a "quango" actually means in this case. "Quasi-NGO" means that while it appears to be a non-governmental organisation, it is not one. Ofcom's at arm's length because the majority of its daily legal obligations are closer to judicial than administrative, and it is UK custom (rightly) to not put judicial functions inside government departments.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#42

Post by echelon »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #32
perihelions wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did do that once, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3477966 ( "Wikipedia blackout page (wikipedia.org)" (2012)) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative

Yet this looks nothing like their reaction to SOPA and PIPA. They even explicitly state that Wikimedia is not against the legislation on the whole. > The Wikimedia Foundation shares the UK government’s commitment to promoting online environments where everyone can safely participate. The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. R…

[flagged]

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#43

Post by timthorn »

exasperaited wrote: post #27
flipbrad wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of what you are posting is not true. Take for instance your claim that "Ofcom is an industry self-regulation body"

Ofcom is a government-approved industry regulator, strictly speaking. It is what in the UK gets called a Quango. A quasi-non-government-organisation. It is not a government body. It is not under direct ministerial control. It gets some funds from government (but mostly through fees levied on industry): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c8eec40f0b... But it operates within industry as the industry's re…

Quasi-autonomous, to be completely accurate. They consult regularly with the industry and ministers but the Office of Communications Act established Ofcom to be independent of both Government and industry. They're accountable to Parliament.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#44

Post by layer8 »

rawbot wrote: post #31
nickslaughter02 wrote: post #10

Wikimedia 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…

In the age of AI chatbots having consumed all of Wikipedia, its relevance has waned. So I don't think they have the same pull as they did before.

In the recent ChatGPT 5 launch presentation, ChatGPT 5 answered a question about how airplane wings produce uplift incorrectly, despite the corresponding Wikipedia page providing the correct explanation and pointing out ChatGPT’s explanation as a common misconception.

AI chatbots are only capable of outputting “vibe knowledge”.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#46

Post by DonaldFisk »

cft wrote: post #3

If the UK orders a Wikipedia block to its ISPs, it would be a good thing, to raise public awareness of the OSA. Wikipedia should do nothing and wait.

From about ten years ago, ISPs were required to block web sites which were unsuitable for children by default. Any ISP's customer (the person paying for internet access, who would therefore be over 18) could ask for the block to be removed. Requiring individual web sites to block access was unnecessary if the intention was to prevent children accessing those sites.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#48

Post by eszed »

dkiebd wrote: post #35
nickslaughter02 wrote: post #10

Wikimedia 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…

I thought people here didn’t like when American companies tried to strongarm democratic governments abroad?

Not to dismiss bee_rider's sibling comment, like at all, but: Wikimedia's nature and purpose might be distinguished from your generic "American" tech "company".

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#49

Post by dylan604 »

ktallett wrote: post #39
rawbot wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the age of AI chatbots having consumed all of Wikipedia, its relevance has waned. So I don't think they have the same pull as they did before.

Despite having consumed all of Wikipedia, it still can't accurately answer many questions so I don't think it's relevance or value has waned. AI has not got anywhere near becoming an encyclopedia and it never will whilst it can't say I don't know something (which Wikipedia can do) and filter the fact from the fiction, which Wikipedia does uses volunteers.

Doesn't AI essentially use the concept of volunteers as well with RLHF?
Post reply on HN