4 ms·

> Wikimedia should block UK access. That will get the attention of media and popularity contest politicians might change their mind. Or they could respect the

> Wikimedia should block UK access. That will get the attention of media and popularity contest politicians might change their mind. Or they could respect the democratic decisions of the countries they do business in? I'm quite critical of the implementation of this legislation but the idea of an American company throwing their weight around trying to influence policy decisions in the UK gives me the ick. Fair enough if the regulations mean they just don't want to do business there but please don't block access to try and strong arm the elected government of another nation.

dizlexic 1y ago
Or they should not do business in them. To me this means block access. If you don't then they're supposed to block access to you anyway so who is strong arming who?
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  As I said in my first comment: if it makes doing business in the UK unpalatable then they are of course free to halt their operations. I was specifically responding to the suggestion above that they should do so as a bargaining move to force the government's hand.
  - _zeso 1y ago
    The Wikimedia Foundation isn't "doing business" in the UK, they're a nonprofit. Their mission statement is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Part of fulfilling that mission is opposing laws that restrict free knowledge and open access, so why should they not use their huge presence as a bargaining tool? Doing so directly aligns with their purpose.
    - AlecSchueler 1y ago
      Because there are legal avenues of protest awarded to them by the United Kingdom. They also definitely "do business" there even if they aren't in it for profit.
      - _zeso 1y ago
        Restricting activism to exclusively “legal avenues” is what allows the slow erosion of our freedoms and rights. The rights you enjoy today would not exist if they weren’t fought outside of the legal frameworks of their time. This law is the perfect example of how rights are not guaranteed and need to be constantly fought for. If they were to block the UK that would just be them no longer “doing business” in the UK, which you seem to agree is perfectly acceptable? You seem to think that the Wikimedia Foundation exists outside of a political context but the reality is their sheer existence is political and always will be.
arrowsmith 1y ago
Is it "democratic" when both parties agree on everything of substance and elections don't change anything no matter who wins? Because that's how "democracy" has worked in the UK for at least as long as I've been alive. Also, no-one asked for this bill, both parties support it, it received basically no debate or scrutiny and was presented as a fait accompli. Where's the democracy exactly?
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  There are any number of criticisms I would happily join you in directing at the British parliamentaey system but I don't think relying on American businesses to pressure the government would actually be the win for democracy you seem to suggest?
  - arrowsmith 1y ago
    I didn't say anything prescriptive, I'm just disputing your use of the word "democratic".
    - AlecSchueler 1y ago
      For all it's issues I think you would be hard pressed to argue that the United Kingdom isn't a democracy in the common sense of the term.
      - johnnyanmac 1y ago
        For all it's issues, it's practically bad faith to argue that the UK is a democracy in the spirit of the term. I believe that's how the EU works with law? Oh yeah, they left that.
        AlecSchueler 1y ago
        I have no idea what this means.
zimpenfish 1y ago
> Or they could respect the democratic decisions of the countries they do business in? Well, the OSA was put into law by the Tories in 2023. The democratic decision of the UK was that they resoundingly rejected what the Tories were doing in the landslide win for Labour in the 2024 GE. I'd quite like UKGOV to respect the democratic decisions of the country and if they won't, I'm quite happy for other people to push back via the courts, public opinion, etc.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  The bill had broad cross party support and passed without opposition from the Labour party.
- madeofpalk 1y ago
  That's not how democracy works. When there's a change in government they don't just abandon all laws the previous one passed. The current government is more than able to use their democratic mandate to appeal or change the law.
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    >When there's a change in government they don't just abandon all laws the previous one passed. Tell that to the US please. >The current government is more than able to use their democratic mandate to appeal or change the law. ° Yes, but they probably a won't without a lot of push back. Here's the push back
- arrowsmith 1y ago
  The Tories' loss had nothing to do with what anybody thought of the OSA, a bill which most people hadn't heard of until last week. But you already knew that.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    And which was supported by Labour.
- 1y ago
mhurron 1y ago
> Or they could respect the democratic decisions of the countries they do business in? Blocking, making it clear why your blocking and that you will continue to block until it changes is respecting the decision.
Kim_Bruning 1y ago
Well, that would be tricky, since Wikipedia is not a business, and is nor is it specifically American. (Other than a foundation in the US that runs the servers) . There are Wikipedias in many of the world's languages! If the UK effectively bans public wikis above a certain size (even if by accident), then it is the law of the land that Wikipedia is banned. Or at least the english wikipedia, which is indeed very large. And if it is banned, then it must block access for the uk, under those conditions. Depending on the exact rules, possibly the uk could make do with the Swahili wikipedia? That said, the problem here is that it is a public wiki of a certain size. One option might be for Wikipedia to implement quotas for the UK, so that they don't fall under category 1 rules. Another option would be to talk with Ofcon and get things sorted that way.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  By Wikipedia I meant the foundation of course. I'm not sure localisation automatically makes them a multinational entity. Windows is available in Chinese but we both understand that Microsoft is not a Chinese company. It is fair to say it's not a business, but essentially there's no difference to my feeling that private entities from other countries shouldn't be throwing their weight around in local democracy. Do you feel that Wikipedia today is banned through the letter of the law? If so why is there a question of it continuing to operate there?
  - Kim_Bruning 1y ago
    The Wikimedia Foundation is not in charge of the Wikipedias per se (though as always, once you have a central organization, it starts stretching its tentacles) . Wikipedias are not merely localized versions of each other, they're truly independent. If you happen to know two languages and want to quickly rack up edits (if that's your sport), arbitraging knowledge between two Wikipedias is one way to go. Wikipedia is not throwing their weight around. They are merely pointing out that the law happens to make their operating model illegal, and surely that can't be the intent. If they are illegal, they cannot operate. Is "very well, we disagree, but if you truly insist, we shall obey the law and leave" throwing your weight around? And yes, I get the impression that the UK's letter of the law could lead to a categorization with rules that (a) Wikipedia simply cannot comply with, and still be a Wikipedia. So in that case Wikipedia would be effectively banned. But we're not there yet. Hence the use of proper legal channels, including this court case. Ofcom is expected to make their first categorizations this summer, so this is timely.
johnnyanmac 1y ago
You call it strong arming, I call it malicious compliance. Wikipedia hosts images, it "may contain pornographic material". Make anyone trying to search up a top 5 website see it before their eyes on how this isn't just a way to affect pornhub. >respect the democratic decisions Let the peope have a say in the going ons instead of lying to get elected, and maybe we can call it democratic again.
sureglymop 1y ago
Also, that won't necessarily do anything. Russia forked wikipedia into Ruwiki after the invasion of Ukraine and it worked out for them.
betaby 1y ago
> Or they could respect Blocking is respecting the law!
ajsnigrutin 1y ago
> Or they could respect the democratic decisions of the countries they do business in? They do that by staying out of such countries. Many US companies don't want to work with EU GDPR and just block all european IPs, wikipedia has full right to leave UK. They are under no obligations to provide service to them in the same was as pornhub is under no obligation to provide services in eg. a country that would require them to disclose IP addresses of all viewers of gay porn, etc. Saying that it was a democratic decision without people actually being asked if they want that (referendum) is just weaseling out instead of directly pointing out that it's a bad policy that very few brits actually wanted. Somehow no one uses the same words when eg. trump does something (tarifs, defunding, etc.), no one is talking about democratic decisions of americans then. Wikipedia has the full right to say "nope, we're not playing that game" and pulling out, even if an actual majority of brits want that.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  I know that and I've been clear about it several times. If business subs unpalatable they gave every right to withdraw. I was responding to the suggestion above that they should do so explicitly as a bargaining chip. And parliamentary representative democracy is still very much democratic even without referenda on every little issue.
xnyan 1y ago
> Or they could respect the democratic decisions of the countries they do business in? In what way would blocking access from the UK be not respecting the law?
NoGravitas 1y ago
As others have noted, blocking /is/ respecting the democratic decisions of the UK. It would bring them into full compliance with the law.

dizlexic 1y ago

Or they should not do business in them. To me this means block access. If you don't then they're supposed to block access to you anyway so who is strong arming who?

AlecSchueler 1y ago
As I said in my first comment: if it makes doing business in the UK unpalatable then they are of course free to halt their operations. I was specifically responding to the suggestion above that they should do so as a bargaining move to force the government's hand.
- _zeso 1y ago
  The Wikimedia Foundation isn't "doing business" in the UK, they're a nonprofit. Their mission statement is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Part of fulfilling that mission is opposing laws that restrict free knowledge and open access, so why should they not use their huge presence as a bargaining tool? Doing so directly aligns with their purpose.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    Because there are legal avenues of protest awarded to them by the United Kingdom. They also definitely "do business" there even if they aren't in it for profit.
    - _zeso 1y ago
      Restricting activism to exclusively “legal avenues” is what allows the slow erosion of our freedoms and rights. The rights you enjoy today would not exist if they weren’t fought outside of the legal frameworks of their time. This law is the perfect example of how rights are not guaranteed and need to be constantly fought for. If they were to block the UK that would just be them no longer “doing business” in the UK, which you seem to agree is perfectly acceptable? You seem to think that the Wikimedia Foundation exists outside of a political context but the reality is their sheer existence is political and always will be.

arrowsmith 1y ago

Is it "democratic" when both parties agree on everything of substance and elections don't change anything no matter who wins? Because that's how "democracy" has worked in the UK for at least as long as I've been alive. Also, no-one asked for this bill, both parties support it, it received basically no debate or scrutiny and was presented as a fait accompli. Where's the democracy exactly?

AlecSchueler 1y ago
There are any number of criticisms I would happily join you in directing at the British parliamentaey system but I don't think relying on American businesses to pressure the government would actually be the win for democracy you seem to suggest?
- arrowsmith 1y ago
  I didn't say anything prescriptive, I'm just disputing your use of the word "democratic".
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    For all it's issues I think you would be hard pressed to argue that the United Kingdom isn't a democracy in the common sense of the term.
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      For all it's issues, it's practically bad faith to argue that the UK is a democracy in the spirit of the term. I believe that's how the EU works with law? Oh yeah, they left that.
      - AlecSchueler 1y ago
        I have no idea what this means.

zimpenfish 1y ago

> Or they could respect the democratic decisions of the countries they do business in? Well, the OSA was put into law by the Tories in 2023. The democratic decision of the UK was that they resoundingly rejected what the Tories were doing in the landslide win for Labour in the 2024 GE. I'd quite like UKGOV to respect the democratic decisions of the country and if they won't, I'm quite happy for other people to push back via the courts, public opinion, etc.

AlecSchueler 1y ago
The bill had broad cross party support and passed without opposition from the Labour party.
madeofpalk 1y ago
That's not how democracy works. When there's a change in government they don't just abandon all laws the previous one passed. The current government is more than able to use their democratic mandate to appeal or change the law.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  >When there's a change in government they don't just abandon all laws the previous one passed. Tell that to the US please. >The current government is more than able to use their democratic mandate to appeal or change the law. ° Yes, but they probably a won't without a lot of push back. Here's the push back
arrowsmith 1y ago
The Tories' loss had nothing to do with what anybody thought of the OSA, a bill which most people hadn't heard of until last week. But you already knew that.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  And which was supported by Labour.
1y ago

mhurron 1y ago

> Or they could respect the democratic decisions of the countries they do business in? Blocking, making it clear why your blocking and that you will continue to block until it changes is respecting the decision.

Kim_Bruning 1y ago

Well, that would be tricky, since Wikipedia is not a business, and is nor is it specifically American. (Other than a foundation in the US that runs the servers) . There are Wikipedias in many of the world's languages! If the UK effectively bans public wikis above a certain size (even if by accident), then it is the law of the land that Wikipedia is banned. Or at least the english wikipedia, which is indeed very large. And if it is banned, then it must block access for the uk, under those conditions. Depending on the exact rules, possibly the uk could make do with the Swahili wikipedia? That said, the problem here is that it is a public wiki of a certain size. One option might be for Wikipedia to implement quotas for the UK, so that they don't fall under category 1 rules. Another option would be to talk with Ofcon and get things sorted that way.

AlecSchueler 1y ago
By Wikipedia I meant the foundation of course. I'm not sure localisation automatically makes them a multinational entity. Windows is available in Chinese but we both understand that Microsoft is not a Chinese company. It is fair to say it's not a business, but essentially there's no difference to my feeling that private entities from other countries shouldn't be throwing their weight around in local democracy. Do you feel that Wikipedia today is banned through the letter of the law? If so why is there a question of it continuing to operate there?
- Kim_Bruning 1y ago
  The Wikimedia Foundation is not in charge of the Wikipedias per se (though as always, once you have a central organization, it starts stretching its tentacles) . Wikipedias are not merely localized versions of each other, they're truly independent. If you happen to know two languages and want to quickly rack up edits (if that's your sport), arbitraging knowledge between two Wikipedias is one way to go. Wikipedia is not throwing their weight around. They are merely pointing out that the law happens to make their operating model illegal, and surely that can't be the intent. If they are illegal, they cannot operate. Is "very well, we disagree, but if you truly insist, we shall obey the law and leave" throwing your weight around? And yes, I get the impression that the UK's letter of the law could lead to a categorization with rules that (a) Wikipedia simply cannot comply with, and still be a Wikipedia. So in that case Wikipedia would be effectively banned. But we're not there yet. Hence the use of proper legal channels, including this court case. Ofcom is expected to make their first categorizations this summer, so this is timely.

johnnyanmac 1y ago

You call it strong arming, I call it malicious compliance. Wikipedia hosts images, it "may contain pornographic material". Make anyone trying to search up a top 5 website see it before their eyes on how this isn't just a way to affect pornhub. >respect the democratic decisions Let the peope have a say in the going ons instead of lying to get elected, and maybe we can call it democratic again.

sureglymop 1y ago

Also, that won't necessarily do anything. Russia forked wikipedia into Ruwiki after the invasion of Ukraine and it worked out for them.

betaby 1y ago

> Or they could respect Blocking is respecting the law!

ajsnigrutin 1y ago

> Or they could respect the democratic decisions of the countries they do business in? They do that by staying out of such countries. Many US companies don't want to work with EU GDPR and just block all european IPs, wikipedia has full right to leave UK. They are under no obligations to provide service to them in the same was as pornhub is under no obligation to provide services in eg. a country that would require them to disclose IP addresses of all viewers of gay porn, etc. Saying that it was a democratic decision without people actually being asked if they want that (referendum) is just weaseling out instead of directly pointing out that it's a bad policy that very few brits actually wanted. Somehow no one uses the same words when eg. trump does something (tarifs, defunding, etc.), no one is talking about democratic decisions of americans then. Wikipedia has the full right to say "nope, we're not playing that game" and pulling out, even if an actual majority of brits want that.

AlecSchueler 1y ago
I know that and I've been clear about it several times. If business subs unpalatable they gave every right to withdraw. I was responding to the suggestion above that they should do so explicitly as a bargaining chip. And parliamentary representative democracy is still very much democratic even without referenda on every little issue.

xnyan 1y ago

> Or they could respect the democratic decisions of the countries they do business in? In what way would blocking access from the UK be not respecting the law?

NoGravitas 1y ago

As others have noted, blocking /is/ respecting the democratic decisions of the UK. It would bring them into full compliance with the law.