Wikipedia Operator Loses Court Challenge To UK Online Safety Act Regulations (reuters.com) 54
The operator of Wikipedia on Monday lost a legal challenge to parts of Britain's Online Safety Act, which sets tough new requirements for online platforms and has been criticized for potentially curtailing free speech. From a report: The Wikimedia Foundation took legal action at London's High Court over regulations made under the law, which it said could impose the most stringent category of duties on Wikipedia.
The foundation said if it was subject to so-called Category 1 duties -- which would require Wikipedia's users and contributors' identities to be verified -- it would need to drastically reduce the number of British users who can access the site. Judge Jeremy Johnson dismissed its case on Monday, but said the Wikimedia Foundation could bring a further challenge if regulator Ofcom "(impermissibly) concludes that Wikipedia is a Category 1 service".
The foundation said if it was subject to so-called Category 1 duties -- which would require Wikipedia's users and contributors' identities to be verified -- it would need to drastically reduce the number of British users who can access the site. Judge Jeremy Johnson dismissed its case on Monday, but said the Wikimedia Foundation could bring a further challenge if regulator Ofcom "(impermissibly) concludes that Wikipedia is a Category 1 service".
Radicalize the moderates. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just shut down Wikipedia for the UK.
You only need a few big sites to do the same to get the UK government to reconsider this dystopian law.
Re:Radicalize the moderates. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now you know why the "1984" was written by a British author.
Re:Radicalize the moderates. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with this in theory, but our government is such a shit-show and either don't have a clue how to run the country or are doing all this damage to satisfy some even bigger cunts with a lot of money.
It's sad that this won't be the last such terrible law, it'll spread to the US and other places much like all the corrosive copyright stuff did at the turn of the millennium.
Re:Radicalize the moderates. (Score:5, Funny)
Well, if your government is a shitshow, it just means your people need to vo--
Sigh. Why, yes, I am an American. Why do you a--
[hangs head in shame] Ok, fair enough. I'll shut the fuck up now.
Re:Radicalize the moderates. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's even worse here in the UK than the US. At least your Government and President campaigned on the platform they are governing on. Nobody there can truthfully claim they didn't know what to expect when they voted Trump in. Labour campaigned on a platform of progressive change, promising to govern for the people. The second they got in power they started clamping down on free speech and banning peaceful protest. It's a coup. They don't have a mandate for this.
The problem with this specific law though is that it wasn't this current Government that brought it in. It was passed by the last lot, who are now claiming they are against it. And the Far Right ReformUK also voted for it but are now pretending they didn't. Vote for Center Left get Far Right. Vote for Center Right get Far Right. Is it any wondser that the most likely next Government is a blatantly Far Right one? We get that whatever we vote for anyway, why bother voting against it?
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, anyone who had lived under a previous Labour government (at least since they abandoned the working classes in 1997) knew exactly what to expect. And while, as you say, the Tories passed this law... Labour's main complaint when it was passed was that it wasn't authoritarian enough.
Re: (Score:1)
It's even worse here in the UK than the US. At least your Government and President campaigned on the platform they are governing on. Nobody there can truthfully claim they didn't know what to expect when they voted Trump in. Labour campaigned on a platform of progressive change, promising to govern for the people. The second they got in power they started clamping down on free speech and banning peaceful protest. It's a coup.
Those of us who are old enough to have experienced previous Labour governments already knew this would happen. We warned you, you chose to ignore and insult us.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you an American? You guys elected Trump.
Yes, I'm absolutely trying to silence your opinion by invoking fallacious logic- I'm British!
Re: Radicalize the moderates. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, when the Tories' bill was being debated in Parliament Labour wanted to make it more authoritarian, not less.
Re: (Score:2)
The Act was passed in October 2023, but let's not allow facts to get in the way of knee jerk rants.
Labour in 2023 said it didn't go far enough. Labour also had 12 months in power to repeal the act. They repealed the Rwanda act within days of getting into power so it's not like they couldn't have done it by now. Remember that it was a Labour Home Secretary, David Blunkett, who 26 years ago tried to pass the Snoopers Charter to give the government access to all your emails and everything you did online.
Re:Radicalize the moderates. (Score:5, Informative)
Reading the article *gasp* it seems this isn't the end of the road, it's still up to the government/communications regulator to figure out where Wikipedia sits on the risk scale and thus what kinds of safeguards they might or might not need to implement.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is about controlling every single source of information you have access to. And the economic value of doing that far exceeds any other losses.
I think Facebook would be enough but that's owned by a fascist so that's not happening. And I don't think anything short of Facebook with it's genuine social media tools people use (I know lots of people who find their friend groups on Facebook) would be enough for the gove
Re: (Score:2)
Just shut down Wikipedia for the UK. You only need a few big sites to do the same to get the UK government to reconsider this dystopian law.
You assume too much. You assume that the government will care that a website has blocked UK users, they didn't care when Apple stomped it's feet threatening to exit the UK market last year over ADP because ultimately they know that as a G7 economy the UK is too valuable a market to cut out.
Re: (Score:2)
List of countries that currently block Wikipedia: China, Russia, Turkey, Venezuela. By pretty much forcing Wikipedia to not serve British users, and thus effectively blocking it, UK can join this list. I hope Labour is proud to stand alongside these countries. Fuck me, what a time to be alive.
Just take down ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, maybe so. I propose a compromise: in the US we can make sure all our celebrity diddlers are identified on wikipedia as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are they not?
Certainly not like that. The Prince Andrew link is a whole page dedicated to, "Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal". Let's see what comes up on wikipedia for both trump and epstein:
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Several lawyers, some election coverage, Carter's funeral, some journalists, and Jill Biden for some reason... but that doesn't even pull up the page on trump, nor the page on epstein, let alone a page dedicated to both.
Maybe we can all compromise and publish one of those "List of..." pages fo
Re: (Score:2)
There is no evidence Trump did so, whether we consider it likely or not.
I don't really see how you can draw a parallel between them.
AFAIK, the worst Trump did was be friends with the guy, and basically acknowledge he was aware of (and ok with) him being a pedo, which is its own kind of ick, but still- these things are not equivalent.
Re: (Score:2)
They both have epstein scandals, which is the thing that started this thread.
While I was writing this reply, I realized a mistake in the search I did. I did, "site:wikipedia.com trump and epstein", which returns nothing of import. Changing the site to wikipedia.ORG does return relevant stuff, like:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Calling Prince Andrew's interaction with Epstein, and Trump's both "scandals" is bordering on libel.
Again, Prince Andrew diddled that girl at Epstein's Island.
Trump, at worst, associated with the guy (at least by the evidence we have)
You have a really warped sense of scale.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no inappropriate link between Trump and Epstein in any of your links.
I didn't claim there was, but those links and facts do include such IMO. I claimed there was an ongoing scandal, and it's no stretch to call it that.
Calling Prince Andrew's interaction with Epstein, and Trump's both "scandals" is bordering on libel.
You mean like in this The Washington Post headline, "Trump fumes as Epstein scandal dominates headlines ..."? I think it's fair to call it a scandal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Trump, at worst, associated with the guy (at least by the evidence we have)
Are we talking about the same adjudicated rapist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"In April 2016, an anonymous woman using the pseudonym "Katie Johnson" filed a lawsuit in Californ
Re: (Score:2)
Are we talking about the same adjudicated rapist?
1) it was sexual assault, not rape.
2) it was a civil trial, not criminal- the evidentiary standard is literally "more likely than not". You couldn't convict someone on it.
You're a weasel.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we talking about the same adjudicated rapist?
1) it was sexual assault, not rape.
According to the judge, "It accordingly is the 'truth,' as relevant here, that Mr. Trump digitally raped Ms. Carroll."
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
You're a weasel.
Says the guy being an apologist for a serially accused sexual abuser and adjudicated rapist. Why do you defend and support such behavior?
Read-only forks ahead? (Score:1)
1) Wikimedia blocks access from the UK unless you are logged in with a verified identity.
2) Other entities around the world, acting independently from each other and (except for the data-copying) independently of Wikimedia, create read-only forks but cap their usage so none of them have to comply with the "Category 1 duties."
Why read-only? Because what would be the point of a "writeable" fork if the edits would be over-written with the next refresh?
Re: (Score:3)
Wikimedia blocks access from the UK unless you are logged in
How about: Wikimedia closes operations in the UK, but nothing prevents UK users from accessing overseas websites, so they ignore the UK "requirements" and everything keeps working until such time as the UK government decides to take actions to ban access to Wikipedia from the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikimedia blocks access from the UK unless you are logged in
How about: Wikimedia closes operations in the UK, but nothing prevents UK users from accessing overseas websites, so they ignore the UK "requirements" and everything keeps working until such time as the UK government decides to take actions to ban access to Wikipedia from the UK.
What sort of action? Like, passing a bill that requires them to verify user identities or they'll be blocked? Or are you saying they should just ignore it and wait for that to happen, and then... then what?
FYI, this part is wrong:
nothing prevents UK users from accessing overseas websites
About 20% of sites are blocked in the UK, according to https://www.bitdefender.com/en... [bitdefender.com]
Here's the Wikipedia page on it, since we're talking about Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Or are you saying they should just ignore it and wait for that to happen, and then... then what?
Yes. I am saying don't do the UK government's work for them. Disregard and let the UK government make their ISPs to block the wikipedia if the UK is going to block the Wikipedia. That way UK government gets to deal with the political ramifications of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Or are you saying they should just ignore it and wait for that to happen, and then... then what?
Yes. I am saying don't do the UK government's work for them. Disregard and let the UK government make their ISPs to block the wikipedia if the UK is going to block the Wikipedia. That way UK government gets to deal with the political ramifications of that.
FYI, there's a "Wikimedia UK". They can't just let the gov block them... that's the antithesis of their goal / purpose. Imagine housing and access to running water, and someone threatens to shut off the water. You can let it go, and then when the water gets shut off, everyone is screwed. Or you can try to fight it or get a workaround in place before it gets to that point, and find contingencies should it come to that. The latter is a healthier move.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, there's a "Wikimedia UK". They can't just let the gov block them
They will have to close down the Wikimedia UK probably.
They either "follow the gov's rules" or let the government block them. And it seems letting the government block them is the better option.
Or you can try to fight it or get a workaround in place before it gets to that point
There is no "workaround". And the government's rules are fundamentally against what Wikipedia is about -- an encyclopedia anyone can edit. The rules would re
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "workaround". And the government's rules are fundamentally against what Wikipedia is about -- an encyclopedia anyone can edit. The rules would require every user identify themselves and possibly have to present a state ID. IF you did that, then not everyone can edit anymore - it is no longer a wiki.
I disagree. It's already a case where not everyone can edit - I have no login, so I can't edit. Everyone who verifies themselves could then view and edit. Wikipedia may find that unacceptable, but there are possible workarounds.
FYI, there's a "Wikimedia UK". They can't just let the gov block them
They will have to close down the Wikimedia UK probably.
They either "follow the gov's rules" or let the government block them. And it seems letting the government block them is the better option.
False dichotomy. For example, the gov. could fine them daily instead. It's not as simple as, "just let the gov. block them."
FWIW, I generally agree with your sentiment, but that's when it's an entity from one country being restricted in another country (or replace "country" with "jur
Re: (Score:2)
False dichotomy. For example, the gov. could fine them daily instead. It's not as simple as, "just let the gov. block them."
The UK effectively cannot enforce a fine against the website, because the website operator is a US-based organization; the Wikimedia Foundation, and they do not have assets within UK jurisdiction. The UK split from the EU, and the Wikipedia's European servers are in Amsterdam, Marseille, and Singapore not UK.
Re: (Score:2)
False dichotomy. For example, the gov. could fine them daily instead. It's not as simple as, "just let the gov. block them."
The UK effectively cannot enforce a fine against the website, because the website operator is a US-based organization; the Wikimedia Foundation, and they do not have assets within UK jurisdiction. The UK split from the EU, and the Wikipedia's European servers are in Amsterdam, Marseille, and Singapore not UK.
IANAL, and I'm not even European, but an argument could be made to hold Wikimedia UK responsible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
* Wikimedia UK exists
* is registered in the UK
* has a website: https://wikimedia.org.uk/ [wikimedia.org.uk]
* is a Wikimedia Chapter, approved by the Wikimedia Foundation
Seems more than a loose association. There is a tenable connection. Guess we'll see how it unfolds.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, and I'm not even European, but an argument could be made to hold Wikimedia UK responsible.
There is zero argument that Wikimedia UK would be responsible.
It is like suggesting some random Linux UK User Group would be responsible for a violation committed by say Linus torvalds himself, or say the Linux Foundation, because both organizations were found to have Linux in their name. Or a 25-year-old John S. Smith would be punishable by a murder committed by a 30 year-old John S. Smith of the same
Re: (Score:2)
If they have no entity in the UK, then most of my comments above can be disregarded. You (mysidia) had said, "How about: Wikimedia closes operations in the UK, ..." which implied they had operations in the UK - I didn't look into that to verify it. So maybe this was a lot of rambling for no reason :-)
Re: (Score:2)
which implied they had operations in the UK
Presumably Wikimedia still accepts donations from users or organizations in the UK. It is in theory possible they have staff in the UK, etc.
There presumably exist some operations they would have to terminate.
As in I wouldn't make the assumption that they don't touch the UK at all. If they want to be out of reach of the UK courts for actions going forward, then they'd have to end a couple things. No more financial transactions, etc, that cross through their b
Link to ruling (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-co... [judiciary.uk] Can we please normalize links to the original source in the summary?
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap, yes please! I'm stunned that it's not a journalistic standard to link to 1st party source material in the article as it is. Slashdot SHOULD be better than standard journalism.
I'm conflicted (Score:2)
Just block the UK (Score:2)
Why not just block it? I mean, if you have no presence in the UK the law probably has no teeth.