3 ms·

I'm really confused about what would realistically happen if Wikimedia just decided to ignore those regulations. They have surely ignored demands to censor Wik

I'm really confused about what would realistically happen if Wikimedia just decided to ignore those regulations. They have surely ignored demands to censor Wikipedia in more authoritarian countries. What makes the UK different? Extradition treaties? Do they even apply here? I have the same confusion about Signal's willingness to leave Europe if chat control is imposed[1], while still providing anti-censorship tools for countries like Iran and China. What makes the European laws they're unwilling to respect different from the Iranian laws they're unwilling to respect?

AlgebraFox 1y ago
They might ban the CEO and employees from entering their country or arrest them when they travel.
- Ylpertnodi 1y ago
  Having moved out of the uk many years ago, being banned from there, may not be such a bad thing. The worst thing is, people will vote out the labour government, and the tory bastards (who will say they are 'the party of freedom) will tell the country "Well, it wasnt us".
  - vizzier 1y ago
    Its worth noting of course, that this is Tory law which was given a grace period before implementation. Labour have chosen to continue its implementation and not repeal it.
chippiewill 1y ago
A variety of things could happen: - Employees become accountable for their company's actions - Wikimedia could be blocked - Other kinds of sanctions (e.g. financial ones) could be levied somehow In practice what will likely happen is Wikimedia will comply: either by blocking the UK entirely, making adjustments to be compliant with UK legislation (e.g. by making their sites read-only for UK-users - probably the most extreme outcome that's likely to occur), or the as-yet unannounced Ofcom regulations they've preemptively appealed actually won't apply to Wikimedia anyway (or will be very light touch).
- deadbabe 1y ago
  What if they simply don’t pay any sanctions?
impossiblefork 1y ago
They don't apply. Delivering this kind of thing is obviously allowed in the US, so there's presumably no mutual criminality.
- EasyMark 1y ago
  .... so far it is. Current politicians are certainly working at the state level to stop anonymous internet usage. Currently limited to pr0n sites, but you can bet that's just the first notch of increased heat on that poor frog in the cooking pot
- jeroenhd 1y ago
  I'm reasonably sure several articles and uploaded artworks violate various US state regulations on adult content, though the states would be idiots trying to enforce them against Wikipedia; that'd only increase the risk of some kind of higher court declaring the law unconstitutional. Geographically speaking, about half the US has "think of the kids" laws that are similar to the UK's.
Jigsy 1y ago
> They have surely ignored demands to censor Wikipedia in more authoritarian countries. What makes the UK different? Extradition treaties? Do they even apply here? The UK has the authority to arrest them (anyone who owns a website) if they ever set foot in the UK if they feel they either haven't censored it adequately enough or refuse to do so. It's one of the reasons why Civitai geoblocked the country.
caturopath 1y ago
Yes, there are unilateral policies and treaties that let the US and the UK collaborate in legal action (going through US institutions to judge them), some of them referenced in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Legal_Policies https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Legal_Policies -- a keyword might be letters rogatory Wikimedia also seems to have a presence in the UK https://wikimedia.org.uk/ https://wikimedia.org.uk/ that presumably would be affected. In most cases they might have enough pull to get folks blacklisted by payment processors, but wikimedia in particular might win that one.

AlgebraFox 1y ago

They might ban the CEO and employees from entering their country or arrest them when they travel.

Ylpertnodi 1y ago
Having moved out of the uk many years ago, being banned from there, may not be such a bad thing. The worst thing is, people will vote out the labour government, and the tory bastards (who will say they are 'the party of freedom) will tell the country "Well, it wasnt us".
- vizzier 1y ago
  Its worth noting of course, that this is Tory law which was given a grace period before implementation. Labour have chosen to continue its implementation and not repeal it.

chippiewill 1y ago

A variety of things could happen: - Employees become accountable for their company's actions - Wikimedia could be blocked - Other kinds of sanctions (e.g. financial ones) could be levied somehow In practice what will likely happen is Wikimedia will comply: either by blocking the UK entirely, making adjustments to be compliant with UK legislation (e.g. by making their sites read-only for UK-users - probably the most extreme outcome that's likely to occur), or the as-yet unannounced Ofcom regulations they've preemptively appealed actually won't apply to Wikimedia anyway (or will be very light touch).

deadbabe 1y ago
What if they simply don’t pay any sanctions?

impossiblefork 1y ago

They don't apply. Delivering this kind of thing is obviously allowed in the US, so there's presumably no mutual criminality.

EasyMark 1y ago
.... so far it is. Current politicians are certainly working at the state level to stop anonymous internet usage. Currently limited to pr0n sites, but you can bet that's just the first notch of increased heat on that poor frog in the cooking pot
jeroenhd 1y ago
I'm reasonably sure several articles and uploaded artworks violate various US state regulations on adult content, though the states would be idiots trying to enforce them against Wikipedia; that'd only increase the risk of some kind of higher court declaring the law unconstitutional. Geographically speaking, about half the US has "think of the kids" laws that are similar to the UK's.

Jigsy 1y ago

> They have surely ignored demands to censor Wikipedia in more authoritarian countries. What makes the UK different? Extradition treaties? Do they even apply here? The UK has the authority to arrest them (anyone who owns a website) if they ever set foot in the UK if they feel they either haven't censored it adequately enough or refuse to do so. It's one of the reasons why Civitai geoblocked the country.

caturopath 1y ago

Yes, there are unilateral policies and treaties that let the US and the UK collaborate in legal action (going through US institutions to judge them), some of them referenced in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Legal_Policies https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Legal_Policies -- a keyword might be letters rogatory Wikimedia also seems to have a presence in the UK https://wikimedia.org.uk/ https://wikimedia.org.uk/ that presumably would be affected. In most cases they might have enough pull to get folks blacklisted by payment processors, but wikimedia in particular might win that one.