Talk:Online Safety Act 2023

"Secretary of State"
The Bill refers throughout to the "Secretary of State", but does not define which of the possible Secretaries of State it is referring to. Judging by the contents of Secretary of State (United Kingdom), the phrase can be used to describe any of the principal Secretaries of State, but that ministers stay within their own portfolio. In practice, would this currently be the Home Secretary, or could the relevant minister be another minister such as the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport? -- The Anome (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Other than the article you mentioned the Cabinet Manual gives a slightly longer explanation, which is that powers conferred on "the Secretary of State" can legally be exercised by any of the appointed Secretaries of State, and the specific portfolios are a matter of convention and determined by the PM (p. 24). This also ensures that laws generally don't have to be rewritten every time government departments get reorganised. In practice, yeah, the Culture Department and the Home Office are the ones signing off this draft bill and accompanying documents, but the PM would have full discretion to transfer the relevant responsibilities to another department at any time if they want to. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 23:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

For the interested
UK Threatens Blowtorching Internet Platforms – Including Wikipedia. From something called CEPA, I have no idea how WP:RS it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears to draw on the written evidence submitted by the WMF -- John of Reading (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

If this passes please block all of Wikipedia behind ID requirement for UK IP addresses
It's the only way to get NPC masses to care about these issues and vocally complain loud enough. 174.57.109.239 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not in the UK, but as far as I know, it appears that this has not happened, not even so much a banner popup from Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation about this piece of terrible and Orwellian legislation that has now passed and received royal assent (unless someone from the UK can show me otherwise). They protested the Stop Online Piracy Act and the PROTECT IP Act that were being proposed in the US Congress back in 2012, they could have easily repeated such a one-day protest against this bill while it was being debated in the UK Parliament, but they didn't, and it would appear that largely nobody cares (which is quite sad, but unsurprising). I'm afraid that a free and open Internet that still respects a modicum of privacy is slowly on its way out, as I'm sure similar legislation will be passed in other countries in the West, especially in the Anglosphere. Enjoy it while it lasts. 2601:8C:4182:9B40:B6DB:D95A:78CA:280B (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"Regulate" vs "Control"
Changing the lede from "regulate" online content to "control", but either work. Happy with either. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"Harmful but legal"
Reuters claims that "harmful but legal" content was removed. Can we link the approval process for UK laws in the article? It's unclear whether the bill has become law.

Reuters says the Bill passed Parliment but "will soon" become law--but not yet? DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Disputed accuracy tag.
The references and citations in this article exclusively refer to the draft Online Safety Bill. However, this article is about the published law: the Online Safety Act. There is - surprisingly - no reference, link or citation to the text of the published text of the law; and no supporting third party sources to back up claims about the published law - ie the Online Safety *Act*. Tonyinman (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is no official text online at present. However, here is an unofficial (but, I think, authoritative) source. https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/bills/2021-22/onlinesafety Thincat (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The website you quoted is a direct copy of this site and pages: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137/stages . These pages refer to the draft Bill, and do not refer to or include the actual text of the Act passed by Royal Assent. In the UK it is customary for any new legislation to be published immediately upon royal assent on the official Legislation.gov.uk website here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk . It's very unusual in this case because there is absolutely no mention - despite wide media coverage - of the Online Safety Act on the goverment's official legislation.gov.uk website. See: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/primary+secondary?title=Online . To the best of my knowledge, the non-publication of an Act on the day of royal assent has never happened before. Tonyinman (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. The link I gave does refer (in passing) the the Bill (as finally amended) having become an Act. Jimbo may be able take comfort in that it seems it is up to the Secretary if State to say when parts of the Act will commence. Thincat (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Additional clarification of issues on this page. This article page - up until 26th October related to the Online Safety Bill - draft legislation. This article was well sourced. However, on the 26th, according to sources, the Bill received royal assent, making it current law, ie an Act. Normally when this is the came the text of the Act is published on leglasation.gov.uk at the same time as royal assent. For some reason - unknown - this has not happened. Similarly, on Wikipedia articles, when the articles relates to an Act there's always an external link and/or citations to the text of the Act. In this case, there has resulted in a situaiton where an article about the Online Safety Act is actually very thinly and inadequately supported by sources, since nearly all the sources relate to the draft Bill. The sources that do relate to the Act do so only in a thin and passing manner and only repeat the Government press release announcement. This source is flawed since is does not provide any evidence of the text of the Act. This is a highly unusual situation where a potential front page Wiki article is underpinned almost entirely by a Government announcement, and no substance. I would image that this situtation would be short lived and that the text of the Act will be published shortly. Until then, however, I think it would be prudent to keep this clarification paragraph. Otherwise, the Wikipedia article would not only be inaccurate, but could lead to Wikipedia looking less than encyclopaedic and impartial if the situation turns out not to be short lived for any reason. I will reprint this on the article's talk page, please do discuss further. Thanks for your understanding.
 * The Act is now online. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/contents/enacted Thincat (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I imagine you can remove the disputed accuracy statement now. Jim Killock (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Synthesis in lead
I pertaining to the act not being published online. To me, this paragraph is inappropriate synthesis because it uses primary sources to draw a conclusion not stated in other sources. reverted my edit, arguing it helped the article. While I think the synthesis is pretty clear and in violation of WP:NOR, I would appreciate more input instead of edit warring over this. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics has been notified of this discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Another note (my bad for not checking this before): The cited reference itself states that Any document which is especially complex in terms of its size or its typography may take longer to prepare. So why is the clarification needed in the first place? The likely reason seems innocent and there's no reason to (intentionally or not) imply something else is going on. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the note I sent to your talk page and this page prior to your note above for the explanation. Tonyinman (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * With the act's publication, this seems moot now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Bias problem here
Hi folks. I'm not a Wikipedia editor so I'm not au fait with how you all work, but I just wanted to alert Wikipedia to a bias issue with this article:

The first paragraph suggests the Act controls all online speech and media. This is not the case. The Act controls 'harmful' speech and media only.

The second paragraph reads "The act requires platforms, including end-to-end encrypted messengers, to scan for child pornography, despite warnings from experts that it is not possible to implement such a scanning mechanism without undermining users' privacy." This critical opinion of the Act should come under the Opposition heading.

I don't have time to go through it in detail sorry, but there may be more issues. Freedom of expression is a contentious issue but in my view it is important that encyclopedia entries acknowledge opposing opinions as just that rather than pass them off as facts. Also, editors from the US should be aware that the US is an outlier in freedom of speech issues compared to the rest of the world, so those opinions/values which favour freedom of speech over protecting the targets of harmful speech, may seem common knowledge but in fact are not elsewhere. Myles Thomas (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)