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.
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?
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.
But that said I want to be clear that I have no issue with the Foundation's current actions or position in the court system. I was responding only very specifically to the suggestion above that they "should" block Wikipedia access immediately in order to force the hand off the British government.
This isn't so much up to feeling as it is up to interpretation of the law. If there isn't a good way for Wikipedia to hide parts of itself and the law requires that it does, then it is effectively banned by the letter of the law.
The question of it continuing to operate exists because it is an obvious good to society that the law is yet to act on shutting down themselves. Right now it continues to exist in the UK despite being illegal due to the good will (or incompetence if you're not feeling generous) of the UK government.
Wikipedia is certainly large enough, in terms of traffic. And as anyone can edit it, it would seem to be a user-to-user service, making it a Category 1 provider, equivalent to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Youtube.
And their wiki page about 'breasts' certainly shows photographs of female nipples. Their pages on penises are likewise illustrated. They also have pages about suicide and self-harm.
Wikipedia is also a website we could reasonably expect children to access.
And Wikipedia did lobby the government, before the act was passed, to make it clear they weren't subject to it, which the government opted not to do.
So it would certainly appear they are subject to it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The current government is more than able to use their democratic mandate to appeal or change the law.
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
But you already knew that.
Most people weren't aware of the Online Safety Act. I would argue it wasn't even any of the policies.
The Tories were in power for 14 years previously. During that time we had 5 prime ministers all of which were seen as weak and ineffective. People were sick of the Conservative party. This includes some of their most ardent supporters.
People were sick of the Conservative party, this includes people that had previously voted for the Conservatives.
The election had low voter turn out. It wasn't that Labour won, it was more like the Conservatives lost and by default Labour took power because they were the only other choice.
Blocking is respecting the law!
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?
Oh yeah, they left that.
The Brexit referendum was in the 2015 Conservative party manifesto [1]. If Labour had won the 2015 election then there would have been no referendum and the UK would still be in the EU. Or if people had voted differently in the referendum, the UK would still be in the EU.
The person I was responding to suggests that elections have never changed anything in the UK within their lifetime. Unless they are less than 10 years old, this is clearly false.
[1] https://www.theresavilliers.co.uk/files/conservativemanifest... (p. 30)
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.
And parliamentary representative democracy is still very much democratic even without referenda on every little issue.
In what way would blocking access from the UK be not respecting the law?
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.