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

681–690 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#681

Post by Jolter »

mongol wrote: post #666
Jolter wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is far, far more likely that you can get most of your opinions represented in a parliament with 8 parties than one with 2 or 3. In Sweden, in the past 50 years, people with ”new” or fringe opinions have successfully started parties, and won seats in either the national or EU parliament, on these issues: - Christianity - Environmentalism - Racism/populism - Internet freedom/privacy - Feminism - Racism/populism, aga…

I don't think the racist label applied to Ny Demokrati is clear cut. It turned out that some of their elected representatives acted this way, but it was not part of their message or program as they won their seats. I see it as more a side effect of quickly populating a party with members without proper wetting. As background, this party was founded about 8 months before the election in 1991, almost like a fluke. It w…

You’re right! And you’ve written up a very good description of the concept of a fundamentally populist party.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#682

Post by Palmik »

I think UK OSA in its current state is bad, but I also think Wikipedia losing this case is good.

Here is Wikipedia's original case:

> 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. Rather, the legal challenge focuses solely on the new Categorisation Regulations that risk imposing Category 1 duties (the OSA’s most stringent obligations) on Wikipedia.

They were asking for special carve-out just for Wikipedia. This was not some principled stance.

Now that they they lost the challenge, they might have to block visitors from UK, which will bring bigger awareness to how bad the current implementation of UK OSA is.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#683

Post by account42 »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #329
miroljub wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wikipedia should voluntarily remove itself from the UK entirely. No visitors, no editors. No, it should remove servers, employees and legal presence from the UK. It's not their job to block UK people from accessing it just because the UK regime want them to. Let the regime censors actually put an effort to block them. Let them make a Great Firewall of the UK, why make it easy for them?

If they don't geoblock UK visitors then every person known to be involved with the operation of wikipedia potentially becomes an international fugitive and if they ever land on UK soil (or perhaps even Commonwealth soil), they could be jailed. Not a fun way to live.

The UK would only get away with such an arrest if the US would allow it, in which case Wikipedia is already fucked.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#685

Post by MrGilbert »

bigfudge wrote: post #669
MrGilbert wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Feels utterly demoralizing when you have to vote for lesser evil and not for someone you feel will be better for the future. Always go for your gut feeling, not for what people are blaring. Especially populists will, as the name suggest, crave for people's attention and a cheap "Yeah, they are totally right!". That's how they win elections. And three months into the new period, they will show their real intentions.

Surely gut feelings are how we get populists voted in? I’d prefer people sat and thought carefully for a while than trusted their gut!

I directly addressed the "feelings" OP was having.

Besides, the past has shown that facts are opinions for some folks, so even that would not work.

My advice assumes a mentally stable person with somewhat modest reasoning.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#686

Post by account42 »

bdcravens wrote: post #100
miroljub wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wikipedia should voluntarily remove itself from the UK entirely. No visitors, no editors. No, it should remove servers, employees and legal presence from the UK. It's not their job to block UK people from accessing it just because the UK regime want them to. Let the regime censors actually put an effort to block them. Let them make a Great Firewall of the UK, why make it easy for them?

It's a lot harder to uproot people than servers. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Staff

The ways things are gong in the world they will need to bite that bullet sooner or later, and not just for the UK.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#687

Post by qcnguy »

gambiting wrote: post #600
qcnguy wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK has had many such laws and still does. During its time of EU membership the British constitution effectively gave up most of its power to a foreign government. The echr still binds parliament and the courts, again to rulings of a foreign Court. The most likely outcome by far at this point is the continuation of disconnection from European institutions by leaving the echr. In effect this would mean the rolling…

>> During its time of EU membership the British constitution effectively gave up most of its power to a foreign government It's nonsensical statements like this that lead to brexit. Some(very very very few) rules were delegated to EU institutions. UK retained full autonomy in almost every area, it could have always limited immigration or how bananas are shaped if it wanted to. To say that "most of the power" was give…

Both Eurosceptics and pro-federalists routinely claim that 80% of all European law originates at the EU Commission - the exact number surely depends on the precise definition of law, but if both sides of this argument agree on a number as high as 80% then summarizing it as "most" is the right wording.

And if 80% of your law is coming from the EU Commission, then it's correct to say most power was given up to a foreign government. Because the EU is a government, according to its own fiercest proponents.

>> That's why reform and Nigel farage have been pushing for many years on leaving the European institutions.

> Which one? And with whom?

All of them. You may have noticed he won the referendum to leave the EU and now his party is the most popular party in Britain according to the polls, largely due to his policy of leaving the ECHR too.

The European institutions are captured by an ideology that there can be no compromises on mass migration ever. This position is insane so they can't win votes on this platform, and therefore their strategy is to abuse various supra-national institutions that were sold to the public as doing other things and then written into the constitution so their decisions can't be overruled.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#688

Post by account42 »

SwtCyber wrote: post #578
amiga386 wrote: post #11

> If Ofcom permissibly determines that Wikipedia is a Category 1 service, and if the practical effect of that is that Wikipedia cannot continue to operate, the Secretary of State may be obliged to consider whether to amend the regulations or to exempt categories of service from the Act. In doing so, he would have to act compatibly with the Convention. Any failure to do so could also be subject to further challenge. S…

Pulling Wikipedia out of the UK would make a statement, but it'd also hand the government an easy win, I think

Better would be to pull operations out of the UK but keep serving UK citizens without restrictions until the UK itself moves to block it.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#689

Post by qcnguy »

traceroute66 wrote: post #612
gambiting wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> During its time of EU membership the British constitution effectively gave up most of its power to a foreign government It's nonsensical statements like this that lead to brexit. Some(very very very few) rules were delegated to EU institutions. UK retained full autonomy in almost every area, it could have always limited immigration or how bananas are shaped if it wanted to. To say that "most of the power" was give…

> UK retained full autonomy in almost every area, it could have always limited immigration or how bananas are shaped if it wanted to. And not only that, but within the EU it is no secret that the UK had the very best seat at the table. The UK had so many carve-outs and exemptions, far more than any other member.

If the best thing you can say about the EU membership is there were lots of exceptions, that is an argument for leaving, not staying.

In reality the exceptions were mostly a work of fiction. For example, the UK was originally assured that the human rights principles they'd originally proposed as a vague set of aspirations would never be made into law, because they weren't suited to be law. Then the EU did that anyway, so the UK got a "carve out" written into the treaties, and it was reported as such to the public. Then the ECJ ruled that it wasn't allowed to have such a carveout and would have to enforce ECHR and ECJ rulings on human rights anyway.

In other words: people were lied to. There was no carveout, not even when every country signed a treaty that spelled out one clear as day. This is how the EU rolls.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#690

Post by fakedang »

ChrisRR wrote: post #614
monooso wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single Labour politician who voted on this bill voted against it. Peter Kyle was one such MP, and now he's making statements like: > I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he’s going to overturn these laws. So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. It's maddening. The worst part is that they've somehow put me in…

I genuinely thought that Farage would finally fuck off after brexit happened. I hadn't really figured that he's in it for the attention rather than the politics

UKIP was dead when BoJo was in power. But of course, the Tories under May, BoJo and Sunak amped up immigration to record levels, so now there's a stronger case for Farage to contest. While UKIP was largely about Euroscepticism, Reform has openly racist undertones in their pitch to voters.
Post reply on HN