5 ms·

I'm skeptical this goes anywhere legally speaking. The categorisation regulations are a statutory instrument rather than primary legislation, so they _are_ ope

I'm skeptical this goes anywhere legally speaking. The categorisation regulations are a statutory instrument rather than primary legislation, so they _are_ open to judicial review. But the Wikimedia foundation haven't presented an argument as to why the regulations are unlawful, just an argument for why they disagree with them. It should be noted that even if they succeed (which seems a long shot), this wouldn't affect the main thrust of the Online Safety Act which _is_ primary legislation and includes the bit making the rounds about adult content being locked behind age verification.

ZiiS 1y ago
I can't see any language in the statutory instrument suggesting anyone had any intention of applying it to Wikimedia? The most likely outcome is the court will reassure them of that. This might help other people running similar websites by citing the case rather than having to pay for all the experts but isn't going to magically stop it applying to Meta as intended.
- lysace 1y ago
  Wikimedia hosts what UK puritans consider pornographic content. A lot of it. Often in high quality and with a permissible license. I would link to relevant meta pages but I want to be able travel through LHR.
  - miohtama 1y ago
    A kid can go to Wikipedia and read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
    - Symbiote 1y ago
      They can also go to the library and read the encyclopedia.
  - mrweasel 1y ago
    To be fair, Wikimedia/Wikipedia also hosts a full copy of "Debbie Does Dallas" does to a fluke of copyright. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Does_Dallas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Does_Dallas
    - lysace 1y ago
      I don’t think we disagree.
    - topranks 1y ago
      I do kind of wonder if it benefits Wikipedia for them to allow so much on commons. I get it’s hard to distinguish between pornography and something that might have educational merit at the edges, and have a workable policy. But still I can’t help but think this is not really helping.
  - tmtvl 1y ago
    Musea of fine arts also host what puritans could consider 'pornographic content'. I believe 'Birth of Venus' is the standard go-to example.
- karel-3d 1y ago
  It's in the Medium article. Scroll to "Who falls under Category 1" https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/wikipedias-nonprofit-host-brings-legal-challenge-to-new-online-safety-act-osa-regulations-0f9153102f29 https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/wikipedias-nonprofit-hos...
pjc50 1y ago
More detail: https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/wikipedias-nonprofit-host-brings-legal-challenge-to-new-online-safety-act-osa-regulations-0f9153102f29 https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/wikipedias-nonprofit-hos... It seems to be a fairly standard judicial review: if OFCOM(?) class them as "category 1", they are under a very serious burden, so they want the categorization decision reviewed in court.
- karel-3d 1y ago
  I think it will be very hard to write a definition that excludes wikipedia and includes (and I am quoting the article) "many of the services UK society is actually concerned about, like misogynistic hate websites". Very interested how this goes.
graemep 1y ago
The problem with the focus being on porn behind age verification as the main effect, is that it ignores all the other effects. Closing community forums and wikis. Uncertainty about blog comments. It is actually (as noted in many previous discussion about the Online Safety Act) pushing people to using big tech platforms, because they can no longer afford the compliance cost and risk of running their own.
- ekianjo 1y ago
  > pushing people to using big tech platforms so big tech platforms will cheerfully embrace it. as expected, major players love regulations.
  - miohtama 1y ago
    GDPR killed small and medium online advertising businesses and handed everything to Google and Facebook.
    - the_other 1y ago
      Frankly, that's their fault for pursuing individually targeted advertising. The sad thing isn't that some small shitty businesses lost out, it's that some large shitty businesses didn't.
      - Spivak 1y ago
        And since individually targeted ads perform better and are less expensive it pushes everyone to big US tech platforms. This isn't small advertisers' faults, the law signed their death warrant. They made local grocery stores more expensive and worse quality but kept Walmart around untouched. No one could predict what would happen.
    - freeone3000 1y ago
      It’s a shame it wasn’t able to get them all.
Quarrel 1y ago
I'm not sure what you're basing that on? Have the court filings become available? Of course, the random PR in the OP isn't going to go through their barrister's arguments. While I agree that the main thrust of the legislation won't be affected either way, the regulatory framework really matters for this sort of thing. Plus, win or lose, this will shine a light on some the stupidity of the legislation. Lots of random Wikipedia articles would offend the puritans.
mbonnet 1y ago
It won't go anywhere because in British jurisprudence, Parliament is supreme.

ZiiS 1y ago

I can't see any language in the statutory instrument suggesting anyone had any intention of applying it to Wikimedia? The most likely outcome is the court will reassure them of that. This might help other people running similar websites by citing the case rather than having to pay for all the experts but isn't going to magically stop it applying to Meta as intended.

lysace 1y ago
Wikimedia hosts what UK puritans consider pornographic content. A lot of it. Often in high quality and with a permissible license. I would link to relevant meta pages but I want to be able travel through LHR.
- miohtama 1y ago
  A kid can go to Wikipedia and read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
  - Symbiote 1y ago
    They can also go to the library and read the encyclopedia.
- mrweasel 1y ago
  To be fair, Wikimedia/Wikipedia also hosts a full copy of "Debbie Does Dallas" does to a fluke of copyright. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Does_Dallas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Does_Dallas
  - lysace 1y ago
    I don’t think we disagree.
  - topranks 1y ago
    I do kind of wonder if it benefits Wikipedia for them to allow so much on commons. I get it’s hard to distinguish between pornography and something that might have educational merit at the edges, and have a workable policy. But still I can’t help but think this is not really helping.
- tmtvl 1y ago
  Musea of fine arts also host what puritans could consider 'pornographic content'. I believe 'Birth of Venus' is the standard go-to example.
karel-3d 1y ago
It's in the Medium article. Scroll to "Who falls under Category 1" https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/wikipedias-nonprofit-host-brings-legal-challenge-to-new-online-safety-act-osa-regulations-0f9153102f29 https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/wikipedias-nonprofit-hos...

pjc50 1y ago

More detail: https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/wikipedias-nonprofit-host-brings-legal-challenge-to-new-online-safety-act-osa-regulations-0f9153102f29 https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/wikipedias-nonprofit-hos... It seems to be a fairly standard judicial review: if OFCOM(?) class them as "category 1", they are under a very serious burden, so they want the categorization decision reviewed in court.

karel-3d 1y ago
I think it will be very hard to write a definition that excludes wikipedia and includes (and I am quoting the article) "many of the services UK society is actually concerned about, like misogynistic hate websites". Very interested how this goes.

graemep 1y ago

The problem with the focus being on porn behind age verification as the main effect, is that it ignores all the other effects. Closing community forums and wikis. Uncertainty about blog comments. It is actually (as noted in many previous discussion about the Online Safety Act) pushing people to using big tech platforms, because they can no longer afford the compliance cost and risk of running their own.

ekianjo 1y ago
> pushing people to using big tech platforms so big tech platforms will cheerfully embrace it. as expected, major players love regulations.
- miohtama 1y ago
  GDPR killed small and medium online advertising businesses and handed everything to Google and Facebook.
  - the_other 1y ago
    Frankly, that's their fault for pursuing individually targeted advertising. The sad thing isn't that some small shitty businesses lost out, it's that some large shitty businesses didn't.
    - Spivak 1y ago
      And since individually targeted ads perform better and are less expensive it pushes everyone to big US tech platforms. This isn't small advertisers' faults, the law signed their death warrant. They made local grocery stores more expensive and worse quality but kept Walmart around untouched. No one could predict what would happen.
  - freeone3000 1y ago
    It’s a shame it wasn’t able to get them all.

Quarrel 1y ago

I'm not sure what you're basing that on? Have the court filings become available? Of course, the random PR in the OP isn't going to go through their barrister's arguments. While I agree that the main thrust of the legislation won't be affected either way, the regulatory framework really matters for this sort of thing. Plus, win or lose, this will shine a light on some the stupidity of the legislation. Lots of random Wikipedia articles would offend the puritans.

mbonnet 1y ago

It won't go anywhere because in British jurisprudence, Parliament is supreme.