Demonstrably false. It creates a safer online world for some.
> In particular the foundation is concerned the extra duties required - if Wikipedia was classed as Category 1 - would mean it would have to verify the identity of its contributors, undermining their privacy and safety.
Some of the articles, which contain factual information, are damning for the UK government. It lists, for example, political scandals [1] [2]. Or information regarding hot topics such as immigration [3], information that the UK government want to strictly control (abstracting away from whether this is rightfully or wrongfully).
I can tell you what will (and has already) happened as a result:
1. People will use VPNs and any other available methods to avoid restrictions placed on them.
2. The next government will take great delight in removing this law as an easy win.
3. The likelihood of a British constitution is increasing, which would somewhat bind future parliaments.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Labour_Party_(UK)_sca...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_immigration_to_the_Unit...
I wouldn’t be so sure that any next government (which, by the way, there is still a non zero chance could be Labour) will necessarily reverse this. Maybe Reform would tweak the topics, but I’m not convinced any party can be totally trusted to reverse this.
Peter Kyle was one such MP, and now he's making statements like:
> I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he’s going to overturn these laws. So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side.
It's maddening. The worst part is that they've somehow put me in the position of defending Nigel Farage.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/01/labour-pl...
Unless a law is a mortal threat to the current party in power, it will not be repelled. Even so most likely they will try to wash it down instead of actually abolishing it.
Agreed. I think the supposed justifications for mass population-wide online surveillance, restrictions and de-anonymization are so strong most political parties in western democracies go along with what surveillance agencies push for once they get in power. Even in the U.S. where free speech & personal privacy rights are constitutionally and culturally stronger, both major parties are virtually identical in what they actually permit the surveillance state to do once they get in office (despite sometimes talking differently while campaigning).
The reason is that the surveillance state has gotten extremely good at presenting scary scenarios and examples of supposed "disaster averted because we could spy on everyone", or the alternative, "bad thing happened because we couldn't spy on everyone" to politicians in non-public briefings. They keep these presentations secret from public and press scrutiny by claiming it's necessary to keep "sources and methods" secret from adversaries. Of course, this is ridiculous because adversary spy agencies are certainly already aware of the broad capabilities of our electronic surveillance - it's their job after all and they do the same things to their own populations. The intelligence community rarely briefs politicians on individual operations or the exact details of the sources and methods which adversarial intelligence agencies would care about anyway. The vast majority of these secret briefings could be public without revealing anything of real value to major adversaries. At most it would only confirm we're doing the things adversaries already assume we're doing (and already take steps to counter). The real reason they hide the politician briefings from the public is because voters would be creeped out by the pervasive surveillance and domain experts would call bullshit on the incomplete facts and fallacious reasoning used to justify it to politicians.
Even if a politician sincerely intended to preserve privacy and freedom before getting in office, they aren't domain experts and when confronted with seemingly overwhelming (but secret) evidence of preventing "big bad" presented unanimously by intelligence community experts, the majority of elected officials go along. If that's not enough for the anti-privacy agencies (intel & law enforcement) to get what they want, there's always the "think of the children" arguments. It's the rare politician who's clear-thinking and principled enough to apply appropriate skepticism and measured nuance when faced with horrendous examples of child porn and abuse which the law enforcement/intelligence agency lobby has ready in ample supply and deploys behind closed doors for maximum effect. The anti-privacy lobby has figured out how to hack representative democracy to circumvent protections and because it's done away from public scrutiny, there's currently no way to stop them and it's only going to keep getting worse. IMHO, it's a disaster and even in the U.S. (where I am) it's only slightly better than the UK, Australia, EU and elsewhere.
As a rule of thumb, governments don't take actions which reduce their power.
Politicians don't want to reduce their power, but politicians != governments. Lots of scary stuff actually empowers the civil service more than it empowers politicians. The main way politicians loose power is also not by the nature of the job changing, but by loosing elections.
Unfortunately at this time Britain doesn't really have a viable libertarian party. Reform is primarily focused on immigration, and the conservatives have largely withered on the vine becoming merely another center left party. So it's really very unclear if there are any parties that would in fact roll this back, although Nigel Farage is saying they would. His weakness is that he is not always terribly focused on recruiting people ideologically aligned to himself or even spelling out what exactly his ideology is. This is the same problem that the conservatives had and it can lead to back benches that are not on board with what needs to be done. Farage himself though is highly reasonable and always has been.
The thieves no longer have to hack servers in order to obtain sensitive data, they can just set up an age-check company and lure businesses with attractive fees.
In that sense it is safer (for criminals).
It would be an extraordinary amount of work for a government that can barely keep up with the fires of its own making let alone the many the world is imposing upon them. Along with that, watching the horse trading going on over every change they make - I don't see how they ever get a meaningful final text over the line.
It's not a mainstream political priority at all to my knowledge, so I'm mostly curious why you disagree!
People are so quick to start typing their opinions to pretend how smart they are that they forget they have to know things first.
This is way too optimistic. Maybe they'll make it as a campaign promise but in all likelihood they'll be happy to have it without being blamed directly and the law will stay unless people put up enough of a stink that it's clear the alternative would be violent revolution.
Increasing government control over the population is not a partisan issue.
>Demonstrably false. It creates a safer online world for some.
Does it even do that?
Back then people were kinda just complaining about the centralization of Wikipedia. The bar keeps getting lower.
Is everything going to be encrypted behind a VPN protocol in the future?
As an repetition of and an aside to all those pointing out that there is a constitution, what may find gaining some momentum after this are calls for a Bill of Rights, something England used to have[1].
Yeah, its hilarious if you watch or listen to BBC output you would think VPNs don't exist the way the BBC promote it as some sort of amazing new "think of the children" protection.
It may not make sense to you, but they've been arguing constitutional law there for hundreds of years.
Plenty of monarchies also have modern single-document constitutions, like Norway, Spain and Thailand.
> The United Kingdom constitution is composed of the laws and rules that create the institutions of the state, regulate the relationships between those institutions, or regulate the relationship between the state and the individual. These laws and rules are not codified in a single, written document.
Source for that quote is parliamentary: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-com... - a publication from 2015 which considered and proposed a written constitution. But other definitions include unwritten things like customs and conventions. For example:
> It is often noted that the UK does not have a ‘written’ or ‘codified’ constitution. It is true that most countries have a document with special legal status that contains some of the key features of their constitution. This text is usually upheld by the courts and cannot be changed except through an especially demanding process. The UK, however, does not possess a single constitutional document of this nature. Nevertheless, it does have a constitution. The UK’s constitution is spread across a number of places. This dispersal can make it more difficult to identify and understand. It is found in places including some specific Acts of Parliament; particular understandings of how the system should operate (known as constitutional conventions); and various decisions made by judges that help determine how the system works.
https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-uk-cons...
Primarily it was drafted and lobbied for by William Perrin OBE and Prof Lorna Woods at Carnegie UK[1], billed as an “independent foundation”.
William Perrin is also the founder of Ofcom. So he’s been using the foundation’s money to lobby for the expansion of his unelected quango.
It has also been suggested that one of the largest beneficiaries of this law, an age verification company called Yoti, also has financial ties to Carnegie UK.
It’s difficult to verify that because Yoti is privately held and its backers are secret.
It’s not as if anyone was surprised that teenagers can get round age blocks in seconds so there’s something going on and it stinks.
I would like to see much more thorough journalism on the origin of these laws
You can see some of these things on Companies House. This is Yoti Holding Ltd., but you'd have to look at its subsidiaries, too:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...
(I'm not defending Yoti/similar, just mentioning in case you weren't aware of CH)
Do you have any sources for this?
Not that surprising really is it? And all that is advertised on the individual’s bio online.
The only dubious thing you allude to are ‘financial ties’ to Yoti which are completely unsubstantiated. In fact I took the trouble of looking at the Carnegie Foundation’s accounts [1] and for the last two years at least they have had virtually no donor income at all so they are certainly not being funded by Yoti. Perhaps you would like to be more specific about these ties?
I don’t like this legislation much but creating a controversy when there isn’t one isn’t going to get it changed.
Edit: Just to add that the Carnegie Foundation seems to be about as independent and transparent as you can get which might be why it’s been influential. If you don’t think Google, Meta et all have all been lobbying furiously behind the scenes then I don’t know what to say.
Happy to take downvotes for calling out a fake conspiracy theory (‘there’s something going on’).
[1] https://carnegieuk.org/publication/annual-report-and-account...
Passive voice, evidence free conspiracy nonsense that flatters HN biases? Updoots to the left!
From his own Carnegie UK webpage linked above:
> William was instrumental in creating Ofcom, reforming the regulatory regimes of several sectors and kicking off the UK government’s interest in open data.
William was awarded an OBE for his highly influential work at Carnegie UK with Prof Lorna Woods that underpinned the UK government’s approach to regulating online services.
How is he not a founder of Ofcom?
That’s not a conspiracy theory, that’s just a verifiable statement of fact.
Or is it the use of the word founder you object to? If you prefer, “was instrumental in setting up and is closely related to the running of Ofcom”.
Basically, DENIED, DENIED, DENIED. Ofcom can keep the loaded gun pointed in Wikipedia's face, forever, and make as many threats as it likes. Only if it pulls the trigger does Wikipedia have a case.
Wikipedia should voluntarily remove itself from the UK entirely. No visitors, no editors.
No, it should remove servers, employees and legal presence from the UK. It's not their job to block UK people from accessing it just because the UK regime want them to. Let the regime censors actually put an effort to block them. Let them make a Great Firewall of the UK, why make it easy for them?
Not a fun way to live.
It doesn't seem (to me) as definitive as some claim.
Hopefully, this ambiguous language opens the door for further challenges that may provide case law against the draconian Online Safety Act.
Ofcom haven't ruled Wikipedia is Category 1. They haven't announced the intention to rule it Category 1. The Category 1 rules are not yet in effect and aren't even finalised. They aren't pointing any gun.
Wikipedia have a case that they shouldn't be Category 1 if that happens. But they went fishing in advance (or to use an alternative metaphor, they got out over their skis).
What else is the court to do but give a reassurance that the process will absolutely be amenable to review if the hypothetical circumstance comes to pass? That is what the section you are quoted says.
First, it's a statutory instrument that ministers will amend if it has unintended, severe consequences.
Second, the rules in question have not been written yet and they are being written in conjunction with industry (which will include Wikipedia). Because Ofcom is an industry self-regulation body.
I remember an example where the UK Government decided it's OK to rip CDs you own (no, really, it wasn't legal until then), and codified that in law. The parasites that run the UK Music trade organisation appealed and found that the UK had not sufficiently consulted them before deciding to make the law.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-33566933
So - ripping is completely illegal in the UK. Always has been, always will be. Never rip a CD, not even once. Keep paying all your fucking money to the UK Music member corporations and never think you own anything, not even once.
But it illustrates that the UK's law-making is subject to judicial review, and government cannot make laws or regulations without consulting those affected by them how much of a hardship it constitutes to them. The judge here is merely saying we haven't seen the harm yet, and Ofcom can keep threatening indefinitely to cause harm, Wikipedia only have a case when they do cause harm. By contrast, passing the law making CD ripping legal, UK Music argued, using an absolute load of bollocks they made up, that it immediately caused them harm.
Yes. To rephrase it, they cannot act until it's already too late, and the damage has already been done.And we wonder why things are so broken.
Wikipedia is a product of the free internet. It is a product of a world that many politicians still don't understand. But those politicians still make laws that do not make sense, because they believe that something has to be done against those information crimes. And they also do it to score brownie points with their conservative voting base.
The internet has it's problems, no doubt about that. But what these laws do is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Actually, the water probably stays in, because it's not like those laws solve anything.
Many of us think that they understand a free internet very well, specifically the threats it places on their uses (and abuses) of power, and that the laws are quite well designed to curtail that. The UK currently, without identity verification, arrests 30 people per day for things they say online.
So, yes, I believe they both want tracking to exist, because they both benefit massively from it.
People don't like their worldview challenged, no matter their ideology.
Politicians exploit this by offering ways to "help", but at the cost of transferring more power away from the people.
But the top articles are always perma-locked and under curation. Considering how much traffic those articles receive relative to the more esoteric articles, the surface area of vandalizable articles that a user is exposed to is relatively low. Also to that end, vandalism has a low effort-to-impact ratio.
Compared to LLMs, it’s extremely striking to see the relative trust / faith people have in it. It’s pretty sad to see how little the average person values truth and correctness in these systems, how untrusted Wikipedia is to some, and how overly-trusted LLMs are in producing factually correct information to others.
Nah, politicians understand it, they just understand it differently than us do - and they make laws in accordance to that understanding.
Don't give them the same excuse you give to children, they are adults.
Care to remind me what side of the political spectrum was desperately trying to silence all health-related discourse that did not match the government's agenda just a few years ago?
Remember the "Repeal the Online Safety Act" petition? It has gotten over half a million signatures and the response from the government was a loud "no".
> The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.
And they also ignored this one a few years back that had just under 700,000 signatures to "make verified ID a requirement for opening a social media account":
https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/575833
Ironically, the primary reason they gave for rejecting it was:
> However, restricting all users’ right to anonymity, by introducing compulsory user verification for social media, could disproportionately impact users who rely on anonymity to protect their identity. These users include young people exploring their gender or sexual identity, whistleblowers, journalists’ sources and victims of abuse. Introducing a new legal requirement, whereby only verified users can access social media, would force these users to disclose their identity and increase a risk of harm to their personal safety.
[0] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...
And who would they need to hide from?
MPs are elected to Parliament, they get input from their constituents. Bills are debated, revised, voted on multiple times. There are consultations and input from a board range of view points.
A petition is in effect trying to shout over all that process from the street outside.
We shouldn't have to hide behind our more vulnerable peers in order to have reasonable rights for online free speech and unfettered anonymous communication. It is a weak argument made by weak people who aren't brave enough to simply say, "F** you, stop spying on everyone, you haven't solved anything with the powers you have and there's no reason to believe it improves by shoving us all into a panopticon".
Totalitarian neoliberalism sucks; your protest petition with six million signatures is filed as a Jira ticket and closed as WONTFIX, you can't get anyone on the phone to complain at, everyone in power is disposable and replaceable with another stooge who will do the same thing as their predecessor. Go ahead and march in the streets, the government and media will just declare your protest invalid and make the other half of the population hate you on demand.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3477966 ("Wikipedia blackout page (wikipedia.org)" (2012))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA...
On that occassion, it was very effective at getting the American government to back down.
> The Wikimedia Foundation shares the UK government’s commitment to promoting online environments where everyone can safely participate. The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. Rather, the legal challenge focuses solely on the new Categorisation Regulations that risk imposing Category 1 duties (the OSA’s most stringent obligations) on Wikipedia.
---
I personally find it rather frustrating that Wikimedia is suddenly so willing to bend over for fascists. Where did their conscience go?
If not, why not just say "we aren't a UK based organization so we have no obligations under this law"
Let the UK block Wikipedia.
But I'm sure even if that happened, the public consensus would just be "good riddance".
This is an absolutely bizarre country to live in.
In general, I think we need a shift in society to say "yea, screw those kids". We don't put 20km/h limits everywhere because there's a non-zero chance that we might kill a kid. Its the cost of doing business.
Having privacy MEANS that it is difficult to catch bad people. That is just the price. Just swallow it and live with it.
Well, at the very least, the American government is already aiming for that
I wonder what happens if they simply don't comply. Will the UK at any point ask ISPs to ban Wikipedia?
It is a gamble. If people increasingly get their “encyclopedic” information via AI, then it might make almost no noise and then the govt will have even more leverage.
2) Lots of people like it when a company does an obviously good thing, and dislike it when a company does an obviously bad thing. I guess you’ve made a happy discovery: it turns out the underlying principle was something about what the companies were trying to accomplish, rather than some reflexive “American companies are bad” silliness.
AI chatbots are only capable of outputting “vibe knowledge”.
My personal test usage of AI is it will try to bull shit an answer even when you giving known bad questions with content that contradicts each other. Until AI can say there is no answer to bull shit questions it is not truly a viable product because the end user might not know they have a bull shit question and will accept a bull shit answer. AI at it's present state pushed to the masses is just an expensive miss-information bot.
Also, AI that is not open from bottom to top with all training and rules publicly published is just a black box. That black box is just like Volkswagen emissions scandal waiting to happen. AI provider can create rules that override the actual answer with their desired answer which is not only a fallacy. They can also be designed to financially support their own company directly or third party product and services paying them. A question about "diapers" might always push and use the products by "Procter & Gamble".
Yea great, make everyone even dumber by forcing them to use AI slop
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.
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.
Blocking, making it clear why your blocking and that you will continue to block until it changes is respecting the decision.
>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.
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.
Blocking is respecting the law!
In what way would blocking access from the UK be not respecting the law?
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.
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?
Unfortunately, the Internet world we live in today isn't the one I grew up in, so I'm sure things will just go according to plan. Apparently a majority of Britons polled support these rules, even though a (smaller) majority of Britons also believe they are ineffective at their goals[1]. I think that really says a lot about what people really want here, and it would be hard to believe anyone without a serious dent in their head really though this had anything at all to do with protecting children. People will do literally anything to protect children, so as long as it only inconveniences and infringes on the rights of the rest of society. They don't even have to believe it will work.
And so maybe we will finally burn the house to roast the pig.
[1]: https://yougov.co.uk/technology/articles/52693-how-have-brit...
The average person is not thinking about the ways in which legislation can be abused, or in how it oversteps its "stated purpose", or how it can lead to unintended consequences. I remember the news segment saying something to the tune of "new legislation aims to prevent children from viewing pornography", which is a deliberately misinformative take on these kinds of legislation.
The current political atmosphere of the western world is edging towards technofascism at an alarming rate - correlating online activities to real-world identities (more than they already are via the advertisement death cult (read: industry)) is dangerous. A persons political beliefs, national status, health status, personal associations, interests, activities, etc. are all potential means of persecution. Eventually, the western world will see (more) TLAs knocking on doors and asking for papers and stepping inside homes. They're going to forensically analyse computers belonging to average people (which government agencies are already doing at border checkpoints in the US) to weed out political dissidents or people targetted for persecution.
Things are going to get exponentially worse for everyone, and nobody is trying to stop it because the average person is uninformed, uninterested, and - worst of all - an absolute fucking idiot.
Here is Wikipedia's original case:
> The Wikimedia Foundation shares the UK government’s commitment to promoting online environments where everyone can safely participate. The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. Rather, the legal challenge focuses solely on the new Categorisation Regulations that risk imposing Category 1 duties (the OSA’s most stringent obligations) on Wikipedia.
They were asking for special carve-out just for Wikipedia. This was not some principled stance.
Now that they they lost the challenge, they might have to block visitors from UK, which will bring bigger awareness to how bad the current implementation of UK OSA is.
What I hope (and optimistically expect) to happen from here is that Ofcom takes a pragmatic view and interprets the rules such that Wikipedia is, in fact, not caught as a Category 1 site and can continue as before.
That outcome would be in line with Parliament's intent for this Act; the politicians were after Facebook, not Wikipedia, and they won't want any more blowback than the (IMO misguided) porn block has already brought them.
[1] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wikimedi..., para 66.
[2] ibid, para 136.
The whole idea that every site or app must do verification is stupid. It would be much easier and better to do verification at the store when buying a laptop, a phone or a SIM card. The verification status can be burned in firmware memory, and the device would allow only using sites and apps from the white list. In this case website operators and app developers wouldn't need to do anything and carry no expenses. This approach is simpler and superior to what UK does. If Apple or Microsoft refuse to implement restricted functionality for non-verified devices, they can be banned and replaced by alternative vendors complying with this proposal. It is much easier to force Apple and Microsoft - two rich companies - to implement children protection measures than thousands of website operators and app developers.
If you get w3.org and major browser and os vendors in on it, it simply becomes a legally enforced an universal parental control without much drawbacks.
But that would not permit the complete tracking of identity of all individuals in a country with their ptivate Internet activity and political stance.
And that's a massive loss to the true purpose of any law pretending to protect children; Just like the multiple attempts to outlaw encryption or scan all private or messages.
Not at all, because SIM cards are bound to your real identity. So the government knows exactly which websites you visit.
The main point is that the verification is done on the device. The device has a digitally signed flag, saying whether it is owned by an adult user or not. And the OS on the device without the flag allows using only safe apps and websites sending a "Safe: yes" HTTP header. User doesn't need to send your ID to random companies, doesn't need to verify at every website, and website operators and app developers do not need do anything and do not need to do verification - they are banned from unverified devices by default. It is better for everyone.
Also, as I understand the main point of the Act is to allow removing the content the government doesn't like in a prompt manner, for which my proposal is not helpful at all.
I do believe the social factors leading to support for these bans are quite a bit different, but the core minds behind them are of the same creed.
(I am a UK citizen).
1) private - anonymous (don't know who is requesting access) and unlinkable (don't know if the same user makes repeated requests or is the same user on other services).
2) widely available and extremely easy to register and integrate.
The current situation is that it's not easy, or private, or cheap to integrate. And the measures they say they will accept are trivially easy to bypass - so what's the point?
I worked in a startup that satisfied point 1 back in 2015. The widely available bit didn't come off though when we ran out of runway.
This costs Wikipedia nothing - they are not funded by ads. And, in exchange, they don't get sued or any of their employees arrested.
it will achieve absolutely nothing, except to destroy their "market share"
That is the primary reason to ban UK visitors.
They do seem to be considering banning only users after the 7 millionth - 1 visitor every month to avoid being classified as category 1 instead. That would let them avoid some of the most onerous parts of the OSA that would require stripping anonymity from editors and censoring whatever Ofcom says is "misinformation" and "disinformation."
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?
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.
- 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).
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".
Wikimedia also seems to have a presence in the 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.
Geographically speaking, about half the US has "think of the kids" laws that are similar to the UK's.
This isn't to say that the OSA is a universally good thing, or that smaller sites won't be affected by it. However, this request for judicial review wasn't looking to carve out any special cases for specific large sites in favour of smaller sites.
No, they're not. I don't know why people keep repeating this "7 million active users limit" idea, it's nowhere to be found in the actual rules. Tiny forums have already had to close because they didn't want to deal with the legal risk:
The main problem I have with the OSA is that age verification for explicitly pornographic sites exposes users to the very real risks that you mention. However, that's really nothing to do with this ruling, which is instead around the special duties that the OSA imposes on "categorised" services.
No, if Wikipedia falls under it anything meaningful does. You have once again failed to understand the internet.
The difficulty of compliance depends on both how big the size is and the kind of site it is. Many small site overlooked both of those factors.
Not only people in their 30s, but it's who I see making a fuss about it. Presumably because they are now parents of children newly reaching this age.
They are completely ignoring that they are entering a debate that's been going on for longer than they have been alive, and are just arguing from a source of "common sense" gut feelings. They are literally a third of a century behind on this issue, but it doesn't stop them talking about it.
They are incompetent on this issue (nothing bad about that. I'm incompetent in most things), but they are also stupid because they don't let that incompetence stop them.
They are too incompetent to understand that they just did the equivalent of entering a room full of mathematicians with a collective thousands of years of math knowledge, and saying "how about just making 2+2=5? You could make 2+2=4, so you smart people should be able to do it". How do you even start with someone this ignorant? They don't even understand what math is.
"Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" — "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
In fact you've picked probably the least offensive, which is not to say uncontroversial, part of the law to argue with. Its illegal to distribute porn to minors just like its illegal to let underage people gamble on your poker app.
Yet people in factor of age verification laws for porn still have concerns with this because it's just a totally open-ended backdoor into content moderation across the internet.
Also got to experience the full force of the cookie law, which I hadn't realized I was only seeing a fraction of here in Canada.
Terrorism Act 2000 and 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 Investigator Powers Act 2016 Online Safety Act 2023
There has been a raft of legislation both permitting and mandating digital monitoring while increasingly prohibiting types of speech. Many of these laws with overly broad definitions and large amounts of discretion.
> Definition of content recommender systems: Having any “algorithm” on the site that “affects” what content someone might “encounter”, is seemingly enough to qualify popular websites for Category 1. As written, this could even cover tools that are used to combat harmful content. We, and many other stakeholders, have failed to convince UK rulemakers to clarify that features that help keep services free of bad content — like the New Pages Feed used by Wikipedia article reviewers—should not trigger Category 1 status. Other rarely-used features, like Wikipedia’s Translation Recommendations, are also at risk.
> Content forwarding or sharing functionality: If a popular app or website also has content “forwarding or sharing” features, its chances of ending up in Category 1 are dramatically increased. The Regulations fail to define what they mean by “forwarding or sharing functionality”: features on Wikipedia (like the one allowing users to choose Wikipedia’s daily “Featured Picture”) could be caught.
Everybody including the judges seem to agree this is dumb but it's the current law.
they would at least want to block the UK from accessing it first?
Large user-to-user services, known as Category 1 services, will be required to offer adult users tools which, if they choose to use, will give them greater control over the kinds of content they see and who they engage with online.
Adult users of such services will be able to verify their identity and access tools which enable them to reduce the likelihood that they see content from non-verified users and prevent non-verified users from interacting with their content. This will help stop anonymous trolls from contacting them.
Following the publication of guidance by Ofcom, Category 1 services will also need to proactively offer adult users optional tools, at the first opportunity, to help them reduce the likelihood that they will encounter certain types of legal content. These categories of content are set out in the Act and include content that does not meet a criminal threshold but encourages, promotes or provides instructions for suicide, self-harm or eating disorders. These tools also apply to abusive or hate content including where such content is racist, antisemitic, homophobic, or misogynist. The tools must be effective and easy to access.
[1][1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act...
This is the sort of regulatory compliance that has stifled European businesses for decades. Useless overhead.
1. “You may be interested in…” search suggestions on the Wikipedia interface—these are algorithmic, content-based recommendations.
2. Editor suggestion tools that propose pages to edit, based on prior activity. Academic systems helping newcomers with article recommendations also qualify.
Most links within articles—like “See also” sections or hyperlinks—are static and curated by editors, not algorithmically chosen per user. That means they do not meet the recommender system definition.
The legislation text for reference:
"Category 1 threshold conditions 3.—(1) The Category 1 threshold conditions(10) are met by a regulated user-to-user service where, in respect of the user-to-user part of that service, it—
(a)(i)has an average number of monthly active United Kingdom users that exceeds 34 million, and
(ii)uses a content recommender system, or
(b)(i)has an average number of monthly active United Kingdom users that exceeds 7 million,
(ii)uses a content recommender system, and
(iii)provides a functionality for users to forward or share regulated user-generated content(11) on the service with other users of that service.
(2) In paragraph (1), a “content recommender system” means a system, used by the provider of a regulated user-to-user service in respect of the user-to-user part of that service, that uses algorithms which by means of machine learning or other techniques determines, or otherwise affects, the way in which regulated user-generated content of a user, whether alone or with other content, may be encountered by other users of the service. "
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44721403 ("Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations (wikimediafoundation.org)"—189 comments)
So, is Wikipedia really a Category 1 service? From https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348267174, it seems to come down to whether Wikipedia is a site which uses a "content recommender system", where that term is defined as:
> a system, used by the provider of a regulated user-to-user service in respect of the user-to-user part of that service, that uses algorithms which by means of machine learning or other techniques determines, or otherwise affects, the way in which regulated user-generated content of a user, whether alone or with other content, may be encountered by other users of the service
There's plenty of flexibility in that definition for Ofcom to interpret "content recommender system" in a way that catches Facebook without catching Wikipedia. For instance, Ofcom could simply take the viewpoint that any content recommendation that Wikipedia engages in is not "in respect of the user-to-user part of that service."
After today's judgement, and perhaps even before, my own bet is that this is exactly the route Ofcom will take.
Seems pretty logical.
Again I think people outside of the UK perceive Ofcom to be a censor with a ban hammer. It's an industry self-regulation authority -- backed by penalties, yes, but it favours self-regulation. And the implementation is a modifiable statutory instrument specifically so that issues like this can be addressed.
In a perfect world would this all be handled with parental oversight and on-device controls? Yeah, maybe. But on-device parental controls are such a total mess, and devices available so readily, that UK PAYG mobile phone companies have already felt compelled (before the law changed) to block adult content by default.
ETA: I am rate-limited so I will just add that I am in the UK too. Not that this is relevant to the discussion. There is no serious UK consensus for overturning this law; the only party that claims that as a position does not even have the support of the majority of its members. I do not observe this law to be censorship, because as an adult I can see what I want to see, I just have to prove I am an adult. Which is how it used to work with top shelf magazines (so I am told! ;-) )
I suppose it's not really the done thing to say this, but if you disagree with me, say something, don't just downvote.
Post reads: "Periodic reminder that Wikipedia has a squillion times more money than they need to operate the actual website, and all marginal donations go to the fake paper-shuffling NGO that attached itself to the organization for the purpose of feeding on donations from rubes."
Quoted post reads: "I have no interest in giving Wikipedia money to blow on fake jobs for ovecredentialed paper-pushers, but if the banner said “Jimmy Wales created Wikipedia and he’d like to buy a yacht” then I’d pull out my wallet immediately."
Long-time WP contributor and apologist here. I still think Wikipedia does more good than bad (for all its sins), is the greatest collaborative human work of our time, and there is some merit to the idea of having a giant pile of money to be able to fight government-scale battles like this one. But the story of the bureaucrats settling in and leeching donations at scale is basically accurate.
There’s just no way to donate to just Wikipedia (to specially only the server costs or upkeep) but ignore whatever else the organization is up to.
Same story with Mozilla, there’s no way to donate to just the development of Firefox.
It’s all good though, there’s loads of other charities that I can donate to.
Wikimedia does by and large an OK job (the endowment they set up in particular was a great move), but it’s incredibly bloated in ways that should be curtailed before it gets worse. It’s reasonable to want better for a resource as important as Wikipedia.
We don’t want another Mozilla.
There is a million more greedy companies than Wikimedia, there is also other places that could use your money though, i.e Internet Archive, which is always desperate for donations.
Suppression of information is not safety, it’s control.
Hmm. So Reddit, Youtube, etc. would be blocked by ISPs by default?
> The Science Department, which oversees the legislation, told companies they could face fines if they failed to uphold free speech rules.
> A spokesman said: “As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression.
> “Failure to meet either obligation can lead to severe penalties, including fines of up to 10 per cent of global revenue or £18m, whichever is greater.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/08/09/social-media...
They seem to be putting social media platforms between a rock and a hard place, particularly as political debate in the UK is starting to heat up somewhat. I suppose the best to hope for at this point is that fines for infringing free expression never materialize.
Option 2: enabling draconian abuse of power, violation of privacy, and mass surveillance
However, those aren’t not the only two options. Wikipedia could block editing from the UK, or it could simply not comply and wait for an enforcement action.
What recourse would the UK have in any case of such an enforcement action if the law or regulation Wikipedia faces does not exist in the US, where Wikipedia is ostensibly based if it removed all financial or physical presence from the UK?
Most Britons support the current rules: https://yougov.co.uk/technology/articles/52693-how-have-brit...
And like, appeal of of florida Disneyland as a dream place to go to was never all that huge abroad. The Disney cult/dream is more of an American thing.
Similarities I see:
* In the years leading up to government action, a mass hysteria was well cultivated in the media (evil drug users committing abhorrent crimes).
* When launched, the public was overwhelmingly in favor of it (In 1971, 48% of the public said drugs were a serious problem in their community [1]).
That's where we are now. THEN:
* It got worse for decades (By 1986, 56% of Americans said that the government spent "too little" money fighting drugs [1]).
* Following many years of lobbying, some rights are slowly restored. (NORML and other groups fighting for legal medical, then recreational use; mushrooms are legal in few places, etc).
* It's still going on today. (Over 100,000 people currently serving prison sentences for drug-related offenses [2]).
[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/6331/decades-drug-use-data-from...
Having said that, if Wikipedia geo blocked the UK it would send a powerful message to everyone living here.
So maybe yes, but maybe no, depending on how things pan out in subsequent rulings?
Some of us prefer civilization, though.
> When there is No Internet, there is Kiwix Access vital information anywhere. Use our apps for offline reading on the go or the Hotspot in every place you want to call home. Ideal for remote areas, emergencies, or independent knowledge access.
They are clueless to whatever an internet protocol is. Effectively, if it uses the "internet" and you interface with it from a device, it is subject to the ruling.
They have enough touch points with the UK that complying not complying with UK law could cause significant problem.
Can I have zero safety if I choose that?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Ki...
(And you'd usually appeal to the Court of Appeal first.)
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/wikipe...
It should close itself before elections to burn the politicians that try to screw it.
Not that it's unthinkable or anything, but my impression is that people are not quite aware that it ain't free.
It allready collects few hubdred million per year, spends like 10 on wikipedia itself and rest goes for political projects. They could do something useful for once.
(On a side note: all those money and they dont use it to track the cliques / country level actors across admins...)
How would/could the UK enforce this law against WP/WM if they simply didn't obey it?
The UK has some of the oddest laws I have seen from a western nation.
FYI, Wikimedia Foundation just wants a carve out/exception to be able to opt out of category 1 duties.
To be clear I totally agree with you. But they are playing a game.
I have been trying to think what sort of system is ideal to replace them. I think there has to be some kind of strong constitution that guarantees aforementioned rights. But I also think it's instructive to look at America wrt how that can go awry - ie their constitution is routinely ignored, and a lot of the political decision making is done by fifth columnists lobbying for a foreign nation.
Regardless, we need to start having these conversations. It's not a matter of getting different people into Westminster. Westminster is illegitimate. Let's think about what's next and how we can get there peacefully.
If a government decides to dismantle the net - let them see what that means.
Everything else is just theater.
As another commenter pointed out in the earlier thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44721712
> 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.
Ofcom's SI could simply be modified to exclude research texts, and it could even be modified to exclude Wikipedia specifically; there's no obvious problem with that considering its scale and importance.
If you go through Ofcom's checker:
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...
The answers are 1) yes, 2) yes, 3) no, 4) probably "No, but...", 5) no, 6) no.
But the answer to getting out of the problem entirely might be to change the answer to question 6 -- that is, register Wikipedia as an education provider in the UK (since it is already used in that capacity).
I mean Wikipedia have actually exhibited at BETT, the main educational tech show here; Jimmy Wales did a keynote.
That's certainly a potential workaround. But carve outs often mean that similar communities become hard to create!
It's funny, I'm coming up on my citizenship application and I sure as fuck won't ever be voting for Labour. I would rather create my own party and fail then vote for them (or conservatives or Reform). It's amazing how accurate The Thick Of It is.
And it doesn't mean Wikimedia must make the identities public. Same as any other website -- real identity to be provided only to authorities following a court order.
Also, there's a ton of bots and paid agents working full-time to shift political opinions to their political agenda.
Who would've thought the government would confirm that access to knowledge is a threat to their power?
It reminds me of whatever the process is that keeps people in abusive relationships rationalizing how things will be fine now because their abuser promised to stop abusing them for the 100th time.
Our current model of the mind would consider it a delusion, a mental illness.
Considering the past few years and the abuses by government that follow the Biderman’s Chart of Coercion, it seems rather clear that humanity finds itself in a dungeon of the aristocracy once again; sadly enough, due to its own choices and actions.
I don't think the politicians thought of or could conceive of the technological requirements needed if this passes. It's just a knee-jerk bill sponsored by self-professed Conservative Senator Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne. Conservatives of the CPC party in Canada are much farther right of center more evangelical religious than the old Progressive Conservatives PCs were.
Note that Senators in Canada are not like US Senators.
Not sure what comes next but wikipedia blocking UK followed by perhaps a study or two about harm done to the economy may be a good start to get the morons in charge to see the light
This whole saga tells me that nobody in UK gov knows wtf their doing on anything online. (This act was introduced under conservatives and passed under liberals)
- Increases barrier to entry for smaller competitors
- Reliable user data (age, race, who knows what else) derived from video age verification
Anecdote:
My mom recently visited Spain. The process of buying a local SIM card was as follows:
• Show your US passport at a major local cellular provider’s store (Movistar) to have its number associated with the SIM.
• During SIM activation, open a browser page that accesses the phone’s camera.
• Scan the first page of your passport.
• Point the selfie camera at your face, then close your eyes and smile when prompted.
I was about to ask about this, but then I realized it must so that you can't just point it at a photo of someone.
Which law are you talking about by the way?
I was mostly familiar with laws that required porn companies to verify their user's age. That is a lot more targeted and less offensive than UK Online Safety Act Regulations IMO. I mean it's already illegal to distribute porn to minors - that's just requiring them to enforce it at the expense of porn watcher's anonymity. Whereas the UK Online Safety Act is more like a backdoor for content moderation across the internet.
