Dubbed the UK censorship act these days, will it survive the political backlash we are witnessing? Will big tech work to get it right rather than cut off the UK? Can the UK put a stopper back in the bottle? Is this really about social media when it is pornhub doing the blocking? No mention of the fediverse in this article either sadly, but a good read nevertheless. And he has got something right: the US megas have been extreme amplifiers. But Pornhub is Canadian

  • Olap@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    I agree. But I suspect most small forums are still exempt reading this article and the law. If you don’t have potential to cause harm (no porn essentially) you don’t need to do anything. But this has yet to be tested in a court to set any case law yet and so forums are understandably being very cautious

    • Womble@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I wouldnt be so confident in that. The wikimedia foundation are already in legal proceedings arguing against the act being drawn so widely that they would be included with the likes of instagram and twitter as a large scale social media company just due to their talk pages.

      • Olap@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        An interesting test case. Wikipedia contains vast amounts of information about harmful items, and children will use it. Ultimately libraries don’t restrict lending and so I suspect the article here illustrates that they shall emerge victorious

        • scrchngwsl@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          The OSA should have been explicitly worded to exclude organisations like the Wikimedia Foundation from its scope. Clearly the intent of the law was not to clamp down on the Wikimedia Foundation, so the law should have been written such that the Wikimedia Foundation fell clearly outside of its scope. It’s just very poorly drafted.

    • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      User to user communication is considered a risk - so any forum falls under this law.

      Small sites are not exempted (see reply for petition to remove this legislation).

      No leg to stand on there - it’s a solid unworkable overreach.

      • Olap@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        And yet, if you read act: there is a reasonable argument within the legislation. And the article posted mentions it too, from the architect. So you are correct in the fact the size of the site matters not. But if you are reasonably not about questionable matetial, you are likely exempt. Which is essentially what wikipedia are testing. So call it an overreach all you want; but this is yet to be proven

        • scrchngwsl@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I’ve read the act and it’s not clear at all. There is a legal risk if you run a small site about a legal subject with a comment section or forum now that didn’t exist before, which was not the stated intent of the law, and which results from the legislation being poorly drafted.