#Wikipedia just dodged a bullet in the UK but is still in danger.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedi…
The bullet was the possibility of Category 1 classification under the UK Online Safety Act. It was spared that classification but remains on a "watch list" of platforms that "could become Category 1 at any point in the future."
If Wikipedia is later classified as Category 1, then either (1) contributors could no longer be pseudonymous or (2) Wikipedia would be subject to severe penalties under UK law.
How severe? The maximum penalty could include a fine up to £18 million, a UK-wide denial of access, and personal criminal liability for senior managers.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
disorderlyf
in reply to petersuber • • •2something
in reply to disorderlyf • • •Sensitive content
You fell for the rhetorical trick. Every existing and proposed "social media" ban broadly defines the phrase "social media" to include any website where regular people can communicate with other regular people. In public relations, politicians use the phrase "social media" to make you think their ban is narrower than it actually is. But a "social media" ban actually affects
* Wikis
* Forums
* Email
* Encrypted messaging
* IRC
* Usenet
* Blogs
* Your personal static-only html site
Supporters of social media bans are hoping that you hear the phrase "social media" and think it only applies to Facebook. They are lying.