4 ms·
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
by 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 agoWikimedia 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 agoA kid can go to Wikipedia and read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
- Symbiote 1y agoThey can also go to the library and read the encyclopedia.
- mrweasel 1y agoTo 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 agoI don’t think we disagree.
- topranks 1y agoI 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 agoMusea 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 agoIt'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...