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

411–420 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#411

Post by EasyMark »

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).

I think the better option is wikipedia to pull all operations out of the UK that might be there and NOT block UK IP addresses. Stand up for the British people, thumb their nose at the British government. Let the UK put up a "Great Firewall of Great Britain" so the British people understand how close their government is flirting with fascism, while they still have time to remove the fascist leaning politicians.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#412

Post by theandrewbailey »

bravesoul2 wrote: post #344
marcosdumay wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what 451 means. It's "user error, you are trying to access the site from some dystopian society that prohibits it".

Yeah but I want to know if I should submit, protest or revolt. I need more codes :)

The 451 response's body will contain further instructions.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#413

Post by chris_wot »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #249
AlecSchueler wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the foundation who are involved in this court action and who is the topic of this thread. The code uploaded to GitHub wouldn't change the geographic basis of Microsoft either... But that said I want to be clear that I have no issue with the Foundation's current actions or position in the court system. I was responding only very specifically to the suggestion above that they "should" block Wikipedia access immedi…

I agree that wikipedia going dark in the uk would -as yet- be premature at this juncture.

Wikipedia should just continue to operate as normal in its U.S. jurisdiction. If the UK government want to block it, then so be it on their own head.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#414

Post by EasyMark »

tempestn wrote: post #299

I was just vacationing in the UK last week and ran into this ridiculous thing trying to browse (entirely non-pornographic, fwiw) Reddit threads. Which I opted not to read rather than going through the hassle and privacy breach. Also got to experience the full force of the cookie law, which I hadn't realized I was only seeing a fraction of here in Canada.

Why not just get a cheap VPN for traveling or set up tailscale to your home router?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#415

Post by anigbrowl »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #162
arrowsmith wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it "democratic" when both parties agree on everything of substance and elections don't change anything no matter who wins? Because that's how "democracy" has worked in the UK for at least as long as I've been alive. Also, no-one asked for this bill, both parties support it, it received basically no debate or scrutiny and was presented as a fait accompli. Where's the democracy exactly?

There are any number of criticisms I would happily join you in directing at the British parliamentaey system but I don't think relying on American businesses to pressure the government would actually be the win for democracy you seem to suggest?

None of this is responsive to the specific criticisms made, and nor are the follow-up replies.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#416

Post by EasyMark »

impossiblefork wrote: post #104
miki123211 wrote: post #82

I'm really confused about what would realistically happen if Wikimedia just decided to ignore those regulations. They have surely ignored demands to censor Wikipedia in more authoritarian countries. What makes the UK different? Extradition treaties? Do they even apply here? I have the same confusion about Signal's willingness to leave Europe if chat control is imposed[1], while still providing anti-censorship tools f…

They don't apply. Delivering this kind of thing is obviously allowed in the US, so there's presumably no mutual criminality.

.... so far it is. Current politicians are certainly working at the state level to stop anonymous internet usage. Currently limited to pr0n sites, but you can bet that's just the first notch of increased heat on that poor frog in the cooking pot

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#417

Post by bloqs »

yupyupyups wrote: post #290
yamazakiwi wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From people who would harm them? Oh you're that anti-games, anti-porn guy, best to ignore anything you say.

I'm not anti-games. >From people who would harm them? Like who? I really hope you don't mean the kids' parents.

this is coming across as intentionally obtuse questioning. Many people, including governments think that adopting specific sexual preferences and identities is wrong and worthy of criminal charges and harassment at a minimum.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#419

Post by Aeolun »

gundmc wrote: post #391
profmonocle wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly naive question, why should Wikimedia do anything at all? Do they have a legal presence in the UK? If not, why not just say "we aren't a UK based organization so we have no obligations under this law" Let the UK block Wikipedia.

IANAL, but I assume this could open Wikimedia leadership to charges of contempt and eventually lead to needing to avoid visiting the UK or other extraditing countries and potentially pave the way for asset seizures. You generally don't want to antagonize world power governments.

That doesn’t make any sense. It’s not wikimedia’s responsibility to ensure people from the UK don’t hit their servers by typing wikipedia.org into the browser bar.
Post reply on HN