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

771–780 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#771

Post by gnfargbl »

nelox wrote: post #726

The decision upholding the Online Safety Act verification rules against Wikipedia’s challenge overlooks practical and proportionality concerns. Wikipedia operates with minimal commercial infrastructure, relies on volunteers and does not require age-restricted content verification for its core encyclopaedia. The law’s blanket requirement for platforms to implement age verification fails to distinguish between services…

The OSA has several different parts. This ruling is not concerned with those parts of the OSA which deal with child protection; age verification isn't meaningfully mentioned anywhere in the judgment. Additionally, encyclopedias in the UK have routinely included factual sexual content for many decades -- just pick up an old Britannica for evidence -- without being characterised as pornographic. I don't think the OSA seeks to change that.

The main problem I have with the OSA is that age verification for explicitly pornographic sites exposes users to the very real risks that you mention. However, that's really nothing to do with this ruling, which is instead around the special duties that the OSA imposes on "categorised" services.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#772

Post by owisd »

spauldo wrote: post #421
owisd wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem with Wikipedia specifically going all-in on a UK block is, due to the licence, there's nothing to stop someone circumventing the block to make a OSA-compliant Britipedia mirror with minimal effort.

And Wikipedia continues on without having to worry about UK regulations. What's the downside for Wikipedia?

Anyone suggesting a block doesn't actually want Wikipedia to pull out of the UK, it's a negotiating position to extort concessions.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#773

Post by alt227 »

GeekyBear wrote: post #29
perihelions wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did do that once, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3477966 ( "Wikipedia blackout page (wikipedia.org)" (2012)) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative

That was part of a widespread protest against proposed bipartisan internet legislation in America. On that occassion, it was very effective at getting the American government to back down.

Sounds like a pretty much identical situation to this. Maybe it would cause the UK government to back down on this stupid law.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#774

Post by vixen99 »

Lio wrote: post #570
PUSH_AX wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? People make all kinds of empty promises to get into power.

True but all the other parties are currently saying that they 100% will not reconsider this stupid law[1]. I don’t like Farrage. At all. He’s also currently the only MP questioning this law and he’s making fair points about it. The government response is not a clever rebuttal but Jess Philips and Peter Kyle making ad hominem arguments comparing him to one of the nastiest people in our country’s history. This is gover…

> Don't like Farage. At all I love the way folk feel they have to apologize to HN users (guess which way the majority lean) when they recognize someone like Farage has a point.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#775

Post by alt227 »

shit_game wrote: post #599
jchw wrote: post #118

The correct time for major service providers to shift their weight and start pulling out of any jurisdiction necessary to get their point across has already come and gone. The second best time would be as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the Internet world we live in today isn't the one I grew up in, so I'm sure things will just go according to plan. Apparently a majority of Britons polled support these rules, even t…

I remember my mother watching a news segment on TV about the subject of online identity verification several months ago, and she commented that she supported it because "kids shouldn't be looking at these things." I asked her if she believed it's a parents responsibility to parent their children and block childrens' access to unsavory things, or if she felt it might be dangerous to tie a persons legal identity to wha…

Exactly, this is why the 'think of the children' argument always wins when it comes to democracy. People who do not have the knowledge are easy to scare.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#776

Post by alt227 »

EasyMark wrote: post #411
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).

I think the better option is wikipedia to pull all operations out of the UK that might be there and NOT block UK IP addresses. Stand up for the British people, thumb their nose at the British government. Let the UK put up a "Great Firewall of Great Britain" so the British people understand how close their government is flirting with fascism, while they still have time to remove the fascist leaning politicians.

Unfortunately, pretty much all politicians from all parties supported this law. They are as easy to scare with the 'think of the children' argument as the rest of the population are.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#778

Post by alt227 »

karel-3d wrote: post #635
lpribis wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of it comes from GDPR law which was passed prior to brexit. After brexit, the UK kept most of the regulation under the "UK GDPR", meaning it does apply in the UK as well.

Ah. I didn't know there is UK GDPR and UK cookie law! (cookie law is not related to GDPR? or is? I donno) What was the point of brexit if you keep the annoying parts of EU? But, whatever.

> What was the point of brexit if you keep the annoying parts of EU?

Indeed, however the UK was part of the EU for 50 years. All the laws created in that time cannot immediately be replaced quickly or easily, and so most were carried over 'temporarily'

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#780

Post by phatfish »

mathiaspoint wrote: post #754
gambiting wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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. Having the best deal out of all members states in a union is a reason to leave that union? Are you even listening to what you say, or do you just say it so quickly it doesn't process? If you negotiate with your employer to have the best working conditions of everyone at your company,…

Yes if the best thing you can say about the deal is that you don't have to have much of it that's an argument for not doing the deal.

The UK "didn't have much" of all the things it didn't want. But plenty of the things it did want. That is a great deal, Trump would be proud. Plenty of Brits too dumb to understand that though.
Post reply on HN