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

451–460 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#451

Post by tempestn »

EasyMark wrote: post #414
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?

Because it was only a few days. If I'd been there longer I would have.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#452

Post by arresin »

nomilk wrote: post #295

Wild. People compelled by law to produce id before accessing an online encyclopaedia. Shouldn't we be encouraging good behaviours like learning?

That won’t help them build a profile on you though and then, through the help of AI determine if you’re a threat because you’ve been displaying a pattern of looking at things you shouldn’t be.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#453

Post by Aloisius »

steve_taylor wrote: post #446
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...

Why are we conflating pornography and Wikipedia?

Wikipedia hosts pornography.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#454

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

bbor wrote: post #250
thomastjeffery wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because they didn't challenge the overall law in court doesn't mean they wouldn't challenge it in a political sense. That's my point, though. This is the perfect opportunity to do so, and they aren't doing it . Instead, they are picking the smallest possible battle they can. That decision alone makes waves. > Certainly Reddit et al have similar general concerns with having to implement ID systems as they did a…

Thanks for the detailed answers! Again, I share at least some of your underlying concern, and don't want that to be overshadowed. That said, some responses: This is the perfect opportunity to do so, and they aren't doing it. Instead, they are picking the smallest possible battle they can. It looks like they've written three articles "strongly" opposing the "tremendous threat" posed by this bill: two when it was being…

The UK spent the last weekend arresting hundreds of people for holding up signs with the words "Palestine Action" on them, while ignoring people marching around and giving Hitler salutes.

Anyone expecting sanity from the UK on this topic is being somewhat optimistic.

To reiterate - this is not about protecting kids. If it was about protecting kids it would be trivial to set up a blacklist of the most popular porn sites that need ID as a first step, and worry about other sites - like Wikipedia - later.

This is about setting up a mechanism for mass surveillance of future dissent.

The "think of the kids" argument is a Trojan horse - a standard and predictable populist appeal to protective emotions.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#455

Post by Aloisius »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #440
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.

The UK isn't a world power.

Jimmy Wales lives in London.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#456

Post by terminalshort »

Lerc wrote: post #444
mvdtnz wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I really don't understand how you can possibly believe that given your prior statement:

> I live in a country where 91.78% of the population voted for a referendum that bought back hard labour in prisons.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#457

Post by terminalshort »

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.

Problem is, parents are literally the most likely people to do that

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#458

Post by caturopath »

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…

Yes, there are unilateral policies and treaties that let the US and the UK collaborate in legal action (going through US institutions to judge them), some of them referenced in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Legal_Policies -- a keyword might be letters rogatory

Wikimedia also seems to have a presence in the UK https://wikimedia.org.uk/ that presumably would be affected.

In most cases they might have enough pull to get folks blacklisted by payment processors, but wikimedia in particular might win that one.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#459

Post by terminalshort »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #454
bbor wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the detailed answers! Again, I share at least some of your underlying concern, and don't want that to be overshadowed. That said, some responses: This is the perfect opportunity to do so, and they aren't doing it. Instead, they are picking the smallest possible battle they can. It looks like they've written three articles "strongly" opposing the "tremendous threat" posed by this bill: two when it was being…

The UK spent the last weekend arresting hundreds of people for holding up signs with the words "Palestine Action" on them, while ignoring people marching around and giving Hitler salutes. Anyone expecting sanity from the UK on this topic is being somewhat optimistic. To reiterate - this is not about protecting kids. If it was about protecting kids it would be trivial to set up a blacklist of the most popular porn sit…

> The UK spent the last weekend arresting hundreds of people for holding up signs with the words "Palestine Action" on them

Did they arrest them for doing that or while doing that? I suspect it's the latter and it makes all the difference in the world.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#460

Post by TylerE »

cm2012 wrote: post #260
TylerE wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most questions you could guess a number somewhere vaguely near 50% and be right a substantial amount of the time given such massive error bars.

Thats a common fallacy because we tend to care about issues that are 50/50 or divisive. Most opinions are not divisive but thus dont get attention.

That seems like an implied constraint? You don't run polls asking if the sky is blue.
Post reply on HN