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

71–80 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#71

Post by entuno »

nickslaughter02 wrote: post #10

Wikimedia should block UK access. That will get the attention of media and popularity contest politicians might change their mind. Remember the "Repeal the Online Safety Act" petition? It has gotten over half a million signatures and the response from the government was a loud "no". > The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and eff…

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 all users’ right to anonymity, by introducing compulsory user verification for social media, could disproportionately impact users who rely on anonymity to protect their identity. These users include young people exploring their gender or sexual identity, whistleblowers, journalists’ sources and victims of abuse. Introducing a new legal requirement, whereby only verified users can access social media, would force these users to disclose their identity and increase a risk of harm to their personal safety.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#72

Post by IshKebab »

DonaldFisk wrote: post #34
IshKebab wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only privately though. No politician is going to admit to watching porn. Any campaign to save porn isn't going to attract many public supporters.

https://news.sky.com/story/neil-parish-mp-accused-of-watchin... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12535038

Neither of those are relevant. One watched porn at work. Another had her husband expense his porn. And they were both caught rather than admitting it.

We're talking about just watching porn in private, normally. Find me an MP that admits to that.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#73

Post by amenhotep »

miroljub wrote: post #56
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…

> 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?

Because, as someone living in the UK, the only way people here are going to realise what's going on and apply meaningful pressure to the government is if these organisations force us to. And because once they've given up on one country, they'll give up on the rest just as easily.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#74

Post by entuno »

miroljub wrote: post #56
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…

> 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?

They don't need to make anything - that capability has been there for years. It was mostly used to block sites with IIoC, but they also blocked access to various piracy related sites and things like that.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#75

Post by bbor »

echelon wrote: post #42
thomastjeffery wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet this looks nothing like their reaction to SOPA and PIPA. They even explicitly state that Wikimedia is not against the legislation on the whole. > 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. R…

[flagged]

Pretty telling what speech on the left and the right looks like.

For the left, it's:

> Eugene Debs, for example, was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act after he spoke at a rally for peaceful workers telling them they were “fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder”... Likewise, in 1919, Schenck v. U.S., the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Socialist Party member after he sent anti-war leaflets to men across the country.

For the right, it's:

> It will not defend the First Amendment rights of pro-life pregnancy centers [...to trick desparate women into receiving useless propaganda instead of the medical care they were seeking] or small religious businesses [...to deny service based on rank bigotry]. It no longer defends religious freedom [...to deny adoptions to LGBT couples[1], to fire employees for receiving or abetting an abortion[2], and to perjure yourself in a senate hearing about your intention to make legal rulings on the basis of religion[3]], although it once did. And in a leaked internal memo, the ACLU takes the position that free speech denigrating “marginalized groups” should not be defended.

If you're ever in a position to write "marginalized groups" in scare-quotes, perhaps that should be a wakeup call...

P.S. It doesn't help that your links are to 1) a libertarian thinktank founded to oppose the New Deal, 2) the Heritage Foundation and 3) an opinion piece by Alan Dershowitz. The first is extremely biased, and the latter two are just plain bad-faith.

[1] https://www.lgbtmap.org/kids-pay-the-price

[2] https://laist.com/shows/take-two/heres-the-last-of-the-bills...

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/feinstein-the-...

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#76

Post by amenhotep »

exasperaited wrote: post #7
beejiu wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting that was before the High Court's further judgments today, and the article has been updated. The full judgment is here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wikimedi...

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. Suc…

[flagged]

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#77

Post by watwut »

echelon wrote: post #42
thomastjeffery wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet this looks nothing like their reaction to SOPA and PIPA. They even explicitly state that Wikimedia is not against the legislation on the whole. > 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. R…

[flagged]

I am so much not willing to listen to what heritage specifically has to say on the topic. Could you pick less hypocritical and less eager to lie resources to "definitely not pick up on left totally both side"? Heritage foundation literally where Project 2025 was created and published.

Also, I definitely love the track record of "the measure of free speech is your willingness to defend nazi and never use words to support the left":

> To be sure, the ACLU will still occasionally take a high profile case involving a Nazi or Klan member who has been denied freedom of speech, though there are now some on the board who would oppose supporting such right-wing extremists. But the core mission of the ACLU — and its financial priority — is to promote its left-wing agenda in litigation, in public commentary and, now, in elections. If you want to know the reason for this shift, [...]

Yeah, their litmus test is always willingness to defend nazi AND not have left like opinions. If you are aligned with right wing specifically, you are fine. Just dont you dare to have left like opinions. Total neutral.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#78

Post by graemep »

IshKebab wrote: post #26
corndoge wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Porn is popular!

Only privately though. No politician is going to admit to watching porn. Any campaign to save porn isn't going to attract many public supporters.

Not many people are going to say this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7yIlGlUZac

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#79

Post by bbor »

Nicook wrote: post #55
eszed wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to dismiss bee_rider's sibling comment, like at all , but: Wikimedia's nature and purpose might be distinguished from your generic "American" tech "company".

one of the good ones right

Well, it's a non-profit. Technically still a company, but that's an essential difference, to say the least!

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#80

Post by thomastjeffery »

bbor wrote: post #62
thomastjeffery wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet this looks nothing like their reaction to SOPA and PIPA. They even explicitly state that Wikimedia is not against the legislation on the whole. > 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. R…

I share your general frustration, but as an unabashed Wikimedia glazer, I have some potential answers: 1. They lost this legal challenge, so perhaps their UK lawyers (barristers?) knew that much broader claim would be even less likely to work and advised them against it. Just because they didn't challenge the overall law in court doesn't mean they wouldn't challenge it in a political sense. 2. The Protests against SO…

> 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 about policing content for IP violations, but the biggest impact will be on minors.

That's ridiculous. ID systems endanger everyone, particularly the adults who participate. This issue isn't isolated from capitalism. These ID systems must be implemented and managed by corporations, whose greatest incentive is to collect and monetize data.

> We can call it fascism all we like, but at the end of the day, people do seem concerned about children accessing adult content.

The think-of-the-children argument is the oldest trick in the book. You are seriously asking me to take it at face value? No thank you.

> More fundamentally, I strongly suspect that "big business is trying to ruin the internet by hoarding their property" is an easier sell for the average voter than "big government is trying to ruin the internet by protecting children from adult content".

If people really are blind to the change that has happened right in front of them, then we should be spelling it out at every opportunity. This is my biggest concern with how Wikimedia is behaving: they are in a significant position politically, and are abdicating this crucial responsibility.

Post reply on HN