Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

Legal judgment and Category 1 status

• Commenters note the court didn’t bless the Online Safety Act (OSA) wholesale; it rejected Wikipedia’s pre‑emptive challenge because Ofcom hasn’t yet classified Wikipedia as a Category 1 service.
• The judgment is read by several as a warning shot to Ofcom: if Wikipedia is later designated Category 1 in a way that makes it unable to operate, that decision could be vulnerable to a fresh human‑rights challenge.
• Debate centers on whether Wikipedia even fits the statutory definition (use of a “content recommender system” in the user‑to‑user part of the service); some think Ofcom has ample room to interpret this so as to catch big social media but not Wikipedia.

Scope of the OSA and enforcement

• The most onerous duties (e.g. identity‑based tools, proactive controls for “legal but harmful” content) apply only to large Category 1 services, but small forums report shutting down anyway due to perceived legal risk.
• Others push back, pointing to formal thresholds (millions of UK MAUs) and Ofcom guidance that distinguish “large services”, suggesting some closures are over‑cautious self‑regulation.

Age verification, porn, and broader speech

• A major thread argues the “protect children from porn” framing is a political Trojan horse: infrastructure for age‑gating and identity linkage can later be repurposed for political censorship and mass surveillance.
• Supporters of age checks say most of the public backs the idea in principle, even while expecting it to be technically ineffective; critics highlight leading poll questions and ignorance of side‑effects.
• There is concern about third‑party age‑verification vendors, data breaches, and competitive advantages for large incumbents.

What should Wikipedia do?

• Many argue Wikipedia should geoblock the UK (possibly with HTTP 451 and a prominent protest page), forcing ISPs or the state to take visible responsibility and raising domestic backlash.
• Others counter that:
  – It would mainly hurt UK users and editors while easily spawning censored mirrors;
  – Wikipedia is less politically mobilized than it was during SOPA;
  – Non‑UK entities still risk enforcement via staff in the UK, cross‑border legal tools, or travel risks.

Deeper worries: governance and precedent

• Multiple comments see the UK as normalizing “China‑style” infrastructure for identity‑bound internet access, with Ofcom potentially becoming a de‑facto “ministry of truth” under a future government.
• There is broader pessimism that parliamentary systems, petitions, and traditional civil‑liberties safeguards are failing to check expanding online surveillance across Western democracies.