Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#471

Post by Aloisius » Tue, Aug 12, 2025, 1:06 AM UTC

blibble wrote: post #442

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"

It would shield them from legal liability which is more than nothing.

That is the primary reason to ban UK visitors.

They do seem to be considering banning only users after the 7 millionth - 1 visitor every month to avoid being classified as category 1 instead. That would let them avoid some of the most onerous parts of the OSA that would require stripping anonymity from editors and censoring whatever Ofcom says is "misinformation" and "disinformation."

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#472

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Aug 12, 2025, 1:08 AM UTC

Lerc wrote: post #467

terminalshort wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is consistent with my experience that most people seem to not realise that they voted for hard labour. That is indeed the entire theme of this thread, That people can give an answer to a question that in some way does not reflect their honestly held opinion.

idk, maybe they're actually in favor of hard labour (which was after all spelled out in the question) and they're just telling you what they think you want to hear so you don't bug them about it. A lot of people are happy to lie this way.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#473

Post by Aloisius » Tue, Aug 12, 2025, 1:08 AM UTC

steve_taylor wrote: post #466

Aloisius wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia hosts pornography.

Are you referring to educational pictures of human anatomy? There’s quite a difference between that and porn.

No. I mean actual pornography.

For instance, a full copy of Debbie Does Dallas is on its Wikipedia article [NFSW, obviously].

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#474

Post by trhway » Tue, Aug 12, 2025, 1:09 AM UTC

wiredpancake wrote: post #424

trhway wrote: post #381

Does Online Safety Act covers only HTTP? I mean does it cover say bittorrent? Or any outgoing TCP connection?

As if this is even a consideration in the law. They are clueless to whatever an internet protocol is. Effectively, if it uses the "internet" and you interface with it from a device, it is subject to the ruling.

And if i were a lawyer i'd use the legal system - specifically i'd start by challenging OSA on the undue burden grounds for say BitTorrent - bringing in some experts, etc.. If not successful - such ruling would effectively prohibit all unauthenticated network activity - would make the cost of OSA clear to the public. If successful, i'd show that the same content OSA worried about - like p.rn - is widely available on BitTorrent, and thus having limitations for HTTP while not for BitTorrent is capricious or something like this.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#475

Post by denkmoon » Tue, Aug 12, 2025, 1:09 AM UTC

FredPret wrote: post #252

catlikesshrimp wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is doing great. Not saying the UK will do well, just that authoritarian regimes can be successful as states although not great for the commoners.

China only started doing great when they relaxed their ultra-centralized economic rules a little bit in the 1990s. Read business books and news from the 80's - 90's, and they almost never mention China - it's all Germany, UK, Japan, USA. The stats tell the same story - China spent half a century going nowhere fast. After liberalizing their economy, China spent the 90's quietly growing, and only started making real wa…

Economic liberalism isn't really relevant to the question of social authoritarianism. While an enterprising individual in guangzhou can sell whatever he wants to the world without much state involvement, he can't really go around discussing Tibetan sovereignty for example.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#476

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Aug 12, 2025, 1:09 AM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #425

anigbrowl wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really seeing the deception here since it specifies hard labour and says it would apply to all serious violent offenses. How could you vote for this and not know you were voting for hard labour?

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

I don't buy that, and even if they did that doesn't make it deceptive. I'm not arguing in favor of this increased punishment, it just seems to me that its stated plainly enough you can't seriously argue that people were tricked.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#477

Post by stackedinserte2 » Tue, Aug 12, 2025, 1:10 AM UTC

steve_taylor wrote: post #466

Aloisius wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia hosts pornography.

Are you referring to educational pictures of human anatomy? There’s quite a difference between that and porn.

I had the misfortune of talking with a few potheads, and HN's reaction to porn addiction is the same of potheads, denialism, mental gymnastics, and everything but accepting that porn can actually be problematic.

The only reason it doesn't have it's own DSM classification is a mere question of technicality, whatever it is a separate and distinct kind of addiction, or just a manifestation of other types of hyper-sexual disorder.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#478

Post by bee_rider » Tue, Aug 12, 2025, 1:11 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #398

Lerc wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh far more deceptive than that. "Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offenses?" Now let's play tldr with the law! Luckily it was non binding and stands forever as an argument against binding referendums.

I'm not really seeing the deception here since it specifies hard labour and says it would apply to all serious violent offenses. How could you vote for this and not know you were voting for hard labour?

It is somewhat deceptive, or at least misleading, to bundle up the concepts of giving the victims compensation, and punishing the prisoners more aggressively.

Unless the prison labor is providing the compensation, but that would be totally bizarre and dystopian, haha. Not really the sort of thing you’d see in a civilized country.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#479

Post by sczi » Tue, Aug 12, 2025, 1:12 AM UTC

Lerc wrote: post #360

lazide wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me guess - ‘do you support violent prisoners being given work in proportion to their crimes’ or something similar?

Oh far more deceptive than that. "Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offenses?" Now let's play tldr with the law! Luckily it was non binding and stands forever as an argument against binding referendums.

That question clearly says hard labour. I'm sure some people didn't read it, but I think there also may be another effect there, where when talking to people in person, they realize you are morally opposed to forced hard labour, and don't want to seem like a bad person, so they pretend they didn't know. Sort of similar to the recent effect in the US where trump significantly underpolled as many voted for him but don't want to admit it.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#480

Post by Lerc » Tue, Aug 12, 2025, 1:17 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #469

Lerc wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how you could vote for it, I didn't and was astonished that people did. On the other hand. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44870087

I would probably not vote for it on principle, but my specific question was how the text as quoted could be considered deceptive.

In many respects I agree with you there, I almost went with softer language. The fact remains that it appears people were deceived. All of the advocacy pushing the referendum only focused on the first part. To this day I find people who are amazed that it mentioned hard labour and and that they voted for it.

[edit]

I guess think of it in terms of a vote that you had discussed and decided upon before you voted. Could you honestly say that you would read every word of the question or would you just look at the start of it to establish that it was the question under discussion and then trust that the discussion accurately represented what the question on the form would say. The length of the question, was I believe specifically designed to be long to prevent the frequency of its full publication.