6 ms·

In other words, "stay where you are for now, we promise to extend the legislation to cover you in the future".

benj111 2mo ago
Did you actually read the article. Ofcom used a "novel reading of the law" to exempt Wikipedia. The law it seems already covers Wikipedia. Ofcom are choosing not to enforce. I interpret the watchlist comments as ofcom setting up a defensible position for themselves. Yes the law is probably wrong to include Wikipedia, but the enforcers of the law seem to have common sense. Which overall seems to be a win.
- pipes 2mo ago
  I'm guessing they won't do it because it will finally wake the public up to all of this, I.e. bad press + scrutiny. The law should be applied equally to all, it shouldn't be a popularity contest.
  - fsckboy 2mo ago
    and if it is a popularity contest, mystifying that wikpedia would qualify, it has many serious flaws (generally of the form that a small number of zealots can control the messaging on topics they are obsessed with where most people just want information and are unaware that there are people who don't share their enthusiasm for truth)
- Chu4eeno 2mo ago
  Considering wikimedia hosts what most people would consider porn (randomly came across a video of a couple going at it once) without any ability to filter it from the rest of the content/hide by default, it's not that surprising they are covered, I'm more surprised ofcom relented.
  - wildzzz 2mo ago
    Just because there's a video of sexual acts doesn't mean Wikimedia exists for the prurient interest. It's not like Wikimedia is hosting a clip from "Backdoor Sluts 5", it's really just video of sex in the academic sense. Does a young child need to watch it? No, but I also don't think it should it should be censored. A teenager below the age of majority may benefit from seeing what sex actually is. So often a teenager's first visual experience with sex is from unrealistic porn. I'm not saying a realistic depiction of sex should be included in every sex ed classroom lesson but it should be freely available.
    - pocksuppet 2mo ago
      Actually, Wikimedia Commons has a category for pornographic videos.
    - fsckboy 2mo ago
      >Just because there's a video of sexual acts doesn't mean Wikimedia exists for the prurient interest. nice goalpost move. just because wikimedia doesn't exist solely for the prurient interest doesn't mean that it should therefore provide pornography to children in places that have made that illegal. And just because you tilt the table toward providing pornography to children doesn't mean I should be downvoted for honest debate.
- neilalexander 2mo ago
  I did read the article, yes, and it is clear to me that this is a bug, not a feature. Ofcom were suddenly able to find a "novel reading" when directed to do so by a court as a means to temporarily make the problem go away and to avoid having to weaken the legislation. They know full well that if a successful legal challenge forced them to weaken parts of the OSA by removing service categories from scope, that they'd effectively open the floodgates to more challenges over other categories. The government and Ofcom don't want their precious work ripped up and the courts seemingly don't want to be responsible for doing so. Whatever loophole they've found, it is practically a certainty that it will be addressed in the future.
  - pocksuppet 2mo ago
    The UK has "parliamentary supremacy" which means legislation passed by the parliament overrules everything else. If the court determines the legislation has a problem, it goes back to parliament to make sure parliament intended a certain interpretation, but parliament can either change the law, or they can say the court is wrong and the law stands.
    - frereubu 2mo ago
      > or they can say the court is wrong and the law stands Surely the way that parliament says the court is wrong is to re-legislate. They can't just have a vote and say "that interpretation is wrong" if, for example, the Supreme Court rejects their interpretation.
      - pocksuppet 2mo ago
        I don't know the exact process but I don't see why they couldn't do that. Parliamentary supremacy means that Parliament is supreme. What they say, goes. It's a dictatorship of elected MPs, hopefully kept in check by the need to be elected.
        frereubu 2mo ago
        They can't do that because it would make a mockery of the legal system. Parliament does outrank the Supreme Court, but they do that by passing legislation, not just having a vote and going "no, sorry, lol". The whole legal system is built on precedent, which is incompatible with parliament overriding it piecemeal.
- Georgelemental 2mo ago
  No actually, it's not a "win" if everything is formally illegal, and everyone lives in fear that if they don't keep appeasing the faceless unaccountable bureaucrat, they will be prosecuted tomorrow. "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."
- monsecchris 2mo ago
  Could someone seek a private prosecution to make a mockery of the law?

Did you actually read the article. Ofcom used a "novel reading of the law" to exempt Wikipedia. The law it seems already covers Wikipedia. Ofcom are choosing not to enforce. I interpret the watchlist comments as ofcom setting up a defensible position for themselves. Yes the law is probably wrong to include Wikipedia, but the enforcers of the law seem to have common sense. Which overall seems to be a win.

pipes 2mo ago
I'm guessing they won't do it because it will finally wake the public up to all of this, I.e. bad press + scrutiny. The law should be applied equally to all, it shouldn't be a popularity contest.
- fsckboy 2mo ago
  and if it is a popularity contest, mystifying that wikpedia would qualify, it has many serious flaws (generally of the form that a small number of zealots can control the messaging on topics they are obsessed with where most people just want information and are unaware that there are people who don't share their enthusiasm for truth)
Chu4eeno 2mo ago
Considering wikimedia hosts what most people would consider porn (randomly came across a video of a couple going at it once) without any ability to filter it from the rest of the content/hide by default, it's not that surprising they are covered, I'm more surprised ofcom relented.
- wildzzz 2mo ago
  Just because there's a video of sexual acts doesn't mean Wikimedia exists for the prurient interest. It's not like Wikimedia is hosting a clip from "Backdoor Sluts 5", it's really just video of sex in the academic sense. Does a young child need to watch it? No, but I also don't think it should it should be censored. A teenager below the age of majority may benefit from seeing what sex actually is. So often a teenager's first visual experience with sex is from unrealistic porn. I'm not saying a realistic depiction of sex should be included in every sex ed classroom lesson but it should be freely available.
  - pocksuppet 2mo ago
    Actually, Wikimedia Commons has a category for pornographic videos.
  - fsckboy 2mo ago
    >Just because there's a video of sexual acts doesn't mean Wikimedia exists for the prurient interest. nice goalpost move. just because wikimedia doesn't exist solely for the prurient interest doesn't mean that it should therefore provide pornography to children in places that have made that illegal. And just because you tilt the table toward providing pornography to children doesn't mean I should be downvoted for honest debate.
neilalexander 2mo ago
I did read the article, yes, and it is clear to me that this is a bug, not a feature. Ofcom were suddenly able to find a "novel reading" when directed to do so by a court as a means to temporarily make the problem go away and to avoid having to weaken the legislation. They know full well that if a successful legal challenge forced them to weaken parts of the OSA by removing service categories from scope, that they'd effectively open the floodgates to more challenges over other categories. The government and Ofcom don't want their precious work ripped up and the courts seemingly don't want to be responsible for doing so. Whatever loophole they've found, it is practically a certainty that it will be addressed in the future.
- pocksuppet 2mo ago
  The UK has "parliamentary supremacy" which means legislation passed by the parliament overrules everything else. If the court determines the legislation has a problem, it goes back to parliament to make sure parliament intended a certain interpretation, but parliament can either change the law, or they can say the court is wrong and the law stands.
  - frereubu 2mo ago
    > or they can say the court is wrong and the law stands Surely the way that parliament says the court is wrong is to re-legislate. They can't just have a vote and say "that interpretation is wrong" if, for example, the Supreme Court rejects their interpretation.
    - pocksuppet 2mo ago
      I don't know the exact process but I don't see why they couldn't do that. Parliamentary supremacy means that Parliament is supreme. What they say, goes. It's a dictatorship of elected MPs, hopefully kept in check by the need to be elected.
      - frereubu 2mo ago
        They can't do that because it would make a mockery of the legal system. Parliament does outrank the Supreme Court, but they do that by passing legislation, not just having a vote and going "no, sorry, lol". The whole legal system is built on precedent, which is incompatible with parliament overriding it piecemeal.
Georgelemental 2mo ago
No actually, it's not a "win" if everything is formally illegal, and everyone lives in fear that if they don't keep appeasing the faceless unaccountable bureaucrat, they will be prosecuted tomorrow. "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."
monsecchris 2mo ago
Could someone seek a private prosecution to make a mockery of the law?