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

441–450 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#441

Post by NewsaHackO »

Aeolun wrote: post #419
gundmc wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That does make sense, but then that would mean that any business not doing business in UK would not have to follow the rule, which would make the rule worthless. But I hope I am wrong.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#442

Post by blibble »

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).

if they block the UK, 20 UK specific copies will spring up overnight

it will achieve absolutely nothing, except to destroy their "market share"

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#443

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #112
entuno wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those petitions aren't really worth anything - governments have ignored ones with over six million signatures before. And they also ignored this one a few years back that had just under 700,000 signatures to "make verified ID a requirement for opening a social media account": https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/575833 Ironically, the primary reason they gave for rejecting it was: > However, restricting…

It's quite right that petitions are (mostly) ignored in Parliamentary matters, IMHO. MPs are elected to Parliament, they get input from their constituents. Bills are debated, revised, voted on multiple times. There are consultations and input from a board range of view points. A petition is in effect trying to shout over all that process from the street outside.

Don't be ridiculous. MPs get their input from their party superiors, and their party superiors get their input from the people who buy them.

It's been decades since the UK had any genuine bottom-up policy representation for ordinary people.

Petitions are the only mechanism which produces some shadow of a memory of a that.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#444

Post by Lerc »

mvdtnz wrote: post #434
jacobolus wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People read "greater emphasis on the needs of victims" and stop processing afterwards.

No, we didn't. We knew what we were voting for. And I'd vote the same way today.

Do you believe you are in the majority? I'm quite confident that being in favour of hard labour is a minority opinion in New Zealand.

I guess it is at least consistent with your belief that there is a mandate for Project 2025.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#446

Post by steve_taylor »

phpnode wrote: post #85
entuno wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those petitions aren't really worth anything - governments have ignored ones with over six million signatures before. And they also ignored this one a few years back that had just under 700,000 signatures to "make verified ID a requirement for opening a social media account": https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/575833 Ironically, the primary reason they gave for rejecting it was: > However, restricting…

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...

Why are we conflating pornography and Wikipedia?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#447

Post by NewsaHackO »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #200
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...

As always, the devil is in the details. Very careful wording: >do you support or oppose the recent rules requiring age verification to access websites that may contain pornographic material? "may" is doing the heavy lifting. Any website that hosts image "may" contain pornograohic content. So they don't associate this with "I need id to watch YouTube" it's "I need ID to watch pornhub". Even though this affects both. O…

It's funny, I actually interpret it differently; by using "may" vs omitting it would actually imply to include sites like YouTube and Facebook. Without the "may", to me it would imply only sites that have a primary intent of pornographic material, not sites that could include it accidentally.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#448

Post by throwaway9832 »

extraisland wrote: post #389
throwaway2489 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you against any kind of content restriction whatsoever or just porn?

I am generally against content restrictions. I am actually OK with restrictions on pornography. The UK government has engaged political censorship throughout my lifetime. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%931994_British_broa... I still remember the stupid Irish dubbing on the news. I thought it was hilarious when I was 10. Some of it the public are often unaware of e.g super injunctions. https://en.wikipe…

[dead]

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#449

Post by speerer »

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.

Do you mean in the USA, perhaps? It's used more prevalently there, I think it's more likely for an average citizen to refer to a document than a collection of laws and customs. But I don't think that contex overtakes the original meaning.
Post reply on HN