Court Rules Against Wikipedia, Says Government Has Every Right to Endanger Its Citizens

A UK court has ruled against Wikipedia’s challenge to the Online Safety Act, but says that it can challenge its classification on being labelled the most dangerous kind of website on the internet.

Age verification is quickly emerging as one of the biggest threats to internet users these days. Not only is the technology highly insecure with the constant dripping of reports of leaks and multiple data breaches, exposing its users to blackmail, it is is also highly ineffective as it can be trivially defeated with VPNs, video game characters, and fake IDs. While citizens know how horrible such laws are, government is insistent in forging ahead with this effort to further lock down the internet and control its contents.

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this is the fact that major web services are bending at the knee, content with throwing their UK users under the bus and implementing this fundamentally flawed technology and allowing those users to deal with whatever consequences come their way. Those traitors to user safety includes Discord, Reddit, Bluesky, Microsoft (XBox), and Spotify. While those services seem content with just throwing their UK users to the wolves, not every major service out there is simply acting as complicit actors to this major security and free speech scandal.

Wikipedia has previously lodged a complaint against the UKs Online Safety Act. This in a bid to protect the safety and security of its editors. Today, we are learning that Wikipedia has, unfortunately, lost its challenge. From the BBC:

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 “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”.

While this seems like a major loss for internet freedom, the story may not entirely over. Wikipedia has been classified as a “Category 1” website which means it is classified as among the most dangerous websites out there from the perspective of the Online Safety Act. That makes sense because who would want their child exposed to terrifying content like an in-depth explanation about rope or obviously salacious content like a lengthy page about Sesame Street? I mean, just mentioning such awful topics would be enough to traumatize the poor children. As it turns out, though, Wikipedia could still challenge its classification:

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.

So, it could be possible to challenge he classification which is… something at least. Still, this is not the ruling users would reasonably like. It’s entirely possible that Wikipedia could eventually block all of the UK if they feel that the rules are too insane (which they are). Still, a challenge to the classification seems like a logical step in the interim.

Drew Wilson on Mastodon, Twitter and Facebook.