They just know they can't afford the power right now to do it. They would if they thought they could get away with it.
If you don't fight government overreach now, it becomes permanent.
The Ministry of Truth approves of Wikipedia, for now.
I suppose it's part of UK culture to be authoritarian which is how Orwell predicted it, but it's uncanny.
Identity verification should be illegal by default and companies that want to do it should have to prove it's absolutely necessary for their business.
The High Court judgment referred to is available at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wikimedi...
I'm not sure if Ofcom's subsequent notification to WMF is publicly available anywhere.
In other words, "stay where you are for now, we promise to extend the legislation to cover you in the future".
> based on a novel reading of the law
So they found a loop hole. Why do they need to find a loop hole in their own law, why not just make better laws to start with.
You know why all who grew up under the soviet regime in the eastern block are totally alergic to englands direction nowadaways.
Wikipedia is still on the Ofcom watchlist and might be designated Category 1 at some point.
Sounds like turnkey fascism.
Governments would rather censor the whole internet before putting people who have credible allegations of sex crimes against children under investigation and in handcuffs when appropriate.
Thinkudur chiddrun
I wonder what the difference in legal traditions is between the US and the Old World. The latter have a lot of "Yes, you're technically in trouble under the guidelines the enforcement authority rules using but they're going to make an exception for you, for now" and the former have a lot of "Yes, the spirit was to block this kind of thing but the letter of the law is that you do get away with it".
What informed this kind of difference? Is there one?
The US approach seems very much like the way Orthodox Jews follow the halakha by making workarounds around it.