SoylentNews

upstart [soylentnews.org] writes:

████ # This file was generated bot-o-matically! Edit at your own risk. ████

Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act verification rules [bbc.com]:

Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act verification rules ShareSaveShareSaveChris VallanceSenior technology reporterShareSave

Wikipedia has lost a legal challenge to new Online Safety Act rules which it says could threaten the human rights and safety of its volunteer editors.

The Wikimedia Foundation - the non-profit which supports the online encyclopaedia - wanted a judicial review of regulations which could mean Wikipedia has to verify the identities of its users.

But it said despite the loss, the judgement [judiciary.uk] "emphasized the responsibility of Ofcom and the UK government to ensure Wikipedia is protected".

The government told the BBC it welcomed the High Court's judgment, "which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone".

Judicial reviews challenge the lawfulness of the way in which a decision has been made by a public body.

In this case the Wikimedia Foundation and a Wikipedia editor tried to challenge the way in which the government decided to make regulations covering which sites should be classed "Category 1" under the Online Safety Act - the strictest rules sites must follow.

It argued the rules were logically flawed and too broad, meaning a policy intended to impose extra rules on large social media companies would instead apply to Wikipedia.

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.

The only way it could avoid being classed as Category 1 would be to cut the number of people in the UK who could access the online encyclopaedia by about three-quarters, or disable key functions on the site.

The government's lawyers argued that ministers had considered whether Wikipedia should be exempt from the regulations but had reasonably rejected the idea.

'Left the door open'

In the end, the court rejected Wikimedia's arguments.

But Phil Bradley-Schmieg, Lead Counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation, said the judgment did not give Ofcom and the Secretary of State, in Mr Justice Johnson's words, "a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia's operations".

And the judgement makes it clear other legal challenges could be possible.

Wikimedia could potentially challenge Ofcom's decision making if the regulator did ultimately decide to classify the site as Category 1.

And if the effect of making Wikipedia Category 1 meant it could not continue to operate, then other legal challenges could follow.

"Wikipedia has been caught in the stricter regulations due to its size and user created content even though it argues (convincingly) that it differs significantly from other user-to-user platforms," said Mona Schroedel, data protection litigation specialist at law firm Freeths.

"The court's decision has left the door open for Wikipedia to be exempt from the stricter rules upon review."

The communications regulator Ofcom, which will enforce the act, told the BBC: "We note the court's judgment and will continue to progress our work in relation to categorised services and the associated extra online safety rules for those companies."

Wikipedia legally challenges 'flawed' online safety rules [bbc.co.uk]Online Safety Bill [bbc.com]Privacy [bbc.com]Online Safety Bill [bbc.com]Privacy [bbc.com]

Wikipedia can challenge Online Safety Act if strictest rules apply to it, says judge [theguardian.com]:

Wikipedia says it is different to other sites expected to be labelled category 1 providers such as Facebook, X and Instagram. Photograph: Lionel Bonaventure/AFP/Getty ImagesView image in fullscreenWikipedia says it is different to other sites expected to be labelled category 1 providers such as Facebook, X and Instagram. Photograph: Lionel Bonaventure/AFP/Getty ImagesWikipedia can challenge Online Safety Act if strictest rules apply to it, says judge

Wikimedia Foundation says it will be forced reduce access to site if it is classified as a category 1 provider

The operator of Wikipedia [theguardian.com] has been given permission by a high court judge to challenge the Online Safety Act if it is categorised as a high-risk platform, which would impose the most stringent duties.

The Wikimedia Foundation has said it might be forced to reduce how many people can access the site in order to comply with the regulations if it is classified as a category 1 provider [theguardian.com] by Ofcom later this summer.

As a non-profit, the site said, it “would face huge challenges to meet the large technological and staffing needs” required to comply with the duties, which include user-verification requirements, stringent protections for users and regular reporting responsibilities to prevent the spread of harmful content.

The Wikimedia Foundation calculated that the number of people in the UK who access Wikipedia would have to be reduced by about three-quarters in order for the site to not qualify as a category 1 service, which is defined as a large user-to-user platform that uses algorithmic contender recommendations.

It said Wikipedia was different to other sites expected to be labelled as category 1 providers, such as Facebook, X and Instagram, because it was run by a charity and its users typically only encountered content that they sought out.

Mr Justice Johnson refused Wikipedia’s legal challenge [theguardian.com] in the high court on several grounds, but he noted that the site “provides significant value for freedom of speech and expression” and added that the outcome did not give Ofcom or the government “a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia’s operations”.

Any decision to make Wikipedia a category 1 provider would have to be “justified as proportionate if it were not to amount to a breach of the right to freedom of expression”, he said, but he added that it would be “premature” to rule on this since Ofcom had not yet determined that Wikipedia was a category 1 service.

If Ofcom determines that Wikipedia is a category 1 service and this means Wikipedia is unable to operate as at present, Johnson suggested that the technology secretary, Peter Kyle, should “consider whether to amend the regulations or to exempt categories of service from the act” and said Wikipedia could bring a further challenge if he did not.

Phil Bradley-Schmieg, the lead counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation, said: “While the decision does not provide the immediate legal protections for Wikipedia that we hoped for, the court’s ruling emphasised the responsibility of Ofcom and the UK government to ensure Wikipedia is protected as the OSA [Online Safety Act] is implemented.

“The judge recognised the ‘significant value’ of Wikipedia, its safety for users, as well as the damages that wrongly assigned OSA categorisations and duties could have on the human rights of Wikipedia’s volunteer contributors.”

Cecilia Ivimy KC, for the government, said ministers had reviewed Ofcom guidance and considered specifically whether Wikipedia should be exempt from the regulations and rejected that. She said they had decided that Wikipedia “is in principle an appropriate service on which to impose category 1 duties”, and how ministers had arrived at that choice was not “without reasonable foundation nor irrational”.

A government spokesperson said:“We welcome the high court’s judgment today, which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone.”

A government spokesperson said:“We welcome the high court’s judgment today, which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone.”

A government spokesperson said:“We welcome the high court’s judgment today, which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone.”

Explore more on these topics

• Wikipedia [theguardian.com]
• Internet safety [theguardian.com]
• Internet [theguardian.com]
• news [theguardian.com]

Share [mailto]Reuse this content [theguardian.com]

Original Submission