Jump to content

Talk:Internet censorship in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

UK ISPs are filtering Wikipedia

I just found these fascinating links which indicate that UK ISPs are blocking access to certain wikipedia pages; Virgin Killer is one example:

Wikimedia Bugzilla: 16569 Contributions from major UK ISPs being assigned to the same two IP addresses

Reddit thread discussing same

This discussion is not yet referenced by the media, as far as I know, but this action seems pretty extreme. cojoco (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This may be the reference you're looking for, [1] and this wikipedia page offers an awful lot of details Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action--Aled D (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Also offers plenty of refs. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it's been picked up by just about every British media outlet, and the article references plenty. – Toon(talk) 01:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

Users in the UK trying to access the Sucralose article or any other page mentioning Sucralose on the Mercola web site get a message with the text: 'Attorneys acting on behalf of the manufacturers of sucralose, Tate & Lyle PLC based in London, England, have requested that the information contained on this page not be made available to Internet users in England.

I see no evidence of this message when accessing Sucralose-related content on said site. 81.129.129.82 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A UK user told me that accessing the first result of http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sucralose+Mercola, articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/12/03/sucralose-dangers.aspx [unreliable fringe source?], redirects to articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/12/03/sucralose-uk.aspx [unreliable fringe source?] with Javascript. --91.152.236.206 (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... it does indeed forward to the message you mention, but is this really internet censorship anymore than the fact that you can only access the content of http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer in the UK, or http://www.hulu.com in the USA? --ADtalk 17:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I may have misunderstood this. I went to the site mercola.com and searched there for sucralose, and the first result, products.mercola.com/sweet-deception/ [unreliable fringe source?], displayed fine for me -- possibly an oversight, as it does indeed contain critical statements about sucralose. The next couple of result pages displayed an annoying registration form over the top of the content, but seemed to work OK; no "not available" message visible. However, looking carefully under the registration form, I can see part of the "not available" message quoted. This is not at all what I thought the article text meant. I thought that it was saying the page was suppressed, and the "not available" message inserted, by a third-party such as an ISP, which surprised me greatly, hence the "dubious" tag. In fact, the message is generated by the mercola.com site itself. This is a different ball game altogether, and nowhere near so surprising. I wonder if the article could make this clear somehow? 86.134.10.95 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC).
OK, I slightly changed the text to make it clear that it's the website, not some third-party, that issues the message, and also not claim (incorrectly) that any page mentioning sucralose is blocked. 86.134.10.95 (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC).
Of course it is. BBC and Hulu have contracts with the content providers and they would be breaking copyright if they were distributing the content outside the agreed area. Well based comments about consumer products or ingredients, or comments about an old popular album cover, beloved prophet or a convicted criminal in court are all a different matter altogether, but none of them are breaking any contracts. Suppressing such commentary however goes against freedom of speech. --91.152.236.206 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible mandatory censorship

Internet providers face child porn crackdown quotes a leaked letter saying 'a clause in the Police, Crime and Private Security Bill in the Queen's Speech would "compel domestic ISPs to implement the blocking of illegal images of child sexual abuse".' TRS-80 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

title

The Pirate Bay is now blocked in the UK. Porn is about to be blocked in the UK. - 88.104.82.167 (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bt Yahoo and Yahoo censoring posts

This needs to go in, but requires organising and padding out:

People who send in cogent and polite responses to United Kingdom BT Yahoo!'s internet news stories have their posts immediately removed if they do not follow the political views expressed in the Yahoo article. This is easily validated. Complaints about Yahoo! censorship have been going on for years as a quick google search can verify.

I am very surprised that such active censorship has gone unmentioned in this article on UK censorship of the internet.

What do you think? JIJnes (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this would be more appropriate for the article Yahoo! News. Moderation of the comments section is not necessarily censorship though. --Atlasowa (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

New UK lawsuit to censor proxy to The Pirate Bay

Since the section 2011 and 2012 Court orders to block websites linking to potentially copyright infringing materials mentions the Pirate Party, the following seems like relevant information to add:

In December 2012, the BPI started legal action[1][2][3][4] against The Pirate Party after the party refused demands[5][6][7][8] sent at the end of November to remove their proxy to The Pirate Bay.

  1. ^ Lee, Dave (10 December 2012). "Pirate Party threatened with legal action over Pirate Bay proxy". BBC News. Retrieved 12 December 2012. The UK's music industry body is set to take the Pirate Party UK to court in a dispute over offering access to banned site The Pirate Bay.
  2. ^ "Music Industry Threatens to Sue UK Pirate Party over Pirate Bay Proxy". TorrentFreak. 10 December 2012. Retrieved 12 December 2012. Music industry group the BPI is sending its lawyers after the UK Pirate Party after they refused to take their Pirate Bay proxy offline.
  3. ^ Smolaks, Max (10 December 2012). "Pirate Party UK To Be Sued By Music Copyright Holders". TechWeek Europe. Retrieved 12 December 2012. Now, BPI is said to be preparing its lawyers for a legal battle.
  4. ^ "BPI set to sue Pirate Party over Pirate Bay proxy". Complete Music Update. 11 December 2012. Retrieved 12 December 2012. record label trade body the BPI is now preparing to go legal.
  5. ^ Lee, Dave (29 November 2012). "Music industry group BPI demands pirate proxy closure". BBC News. Retrieved 12 December 2012. The UK's music industry body is demanding that a service offering a workaround to access banned site The Pirate Bay is shut down by its owner.
  6. ^ "BPI To UK Pirate Party: Shut Down Your Pirate Bay Proxy". TorrentFreak. 30 November 2012. Retrieved 12 December 2012. Yesterday, TorrentFreak received a tip that the BPI would issue the Pirate Party with a demand to shut down their Pirate Bay proxy service.
  7. ^ Meyer, David (30 November 2012). "Pirate Party UK rebuffs record industry demand for The Pirate Bay proxy shutdown". ZDNet. Retrieved 12 December 2012. The BPI has asked the UK wing of the Pirate Party to remove its blockade-busting proxy for the notorious file-sharing site, but the fledgling political party has refused.
  8. ^ Brian, Matt (30 November 2012). "British music industry body puts pressure on UK Pirate Party to pull popular Pirate Bay proxy". The Next Web. Retrieved 12 December 2012. Kaye shows no sign of complying with the request

Of course, due to the conflict of interest disclosed on my user page and the fact that this is a legal issue involving my colleagues, it is not right that I add this to the article myself and a disinterested editor should check this for NPOV etc. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is well cited, neutral in tone and relevant to the article, so i made the edit. Thanks! --Atlasowa (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I've removed most of the sources - see WP:OVERREF. I also changed 'started' to 'threatened' which is what the sources say. SmartSE (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Porn

Well, the UK just banned pornograhpy again.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/isps-to-include-porn-filters-as-standard-in-uk-by-2014/ "New and existing customers will have to opt out of filtering program."

- 88.104.94.230 (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not just porn! It's very important that people understand that the UK Government are moving to ban "adult content." This includes violence, smoking, alcohol, drug-use, "extremist" material and anything the government finds "objectionable." That last part should be ringing alarm bells. This is a blanket censorship of the internet. 82.24.93.170 (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Web blocking in the United Kingdom - done, what to kill from this page?

I just finished the first iteration of Web blocking in the United Kingdom

I've done a lot of include-backs to this page so as not to remove too much content. But now web blocking elements can be radically reduced. But what's the best practice for this? I don't know :( Deku-shrub (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the question is 'how long should this page be'? and I edit down from there Deku-shrub (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect cover?

The section marked "The controversial cover that caused Wikipedia to be blacklisted by the IWF" has a link to the alternate cover (which wasn't censored), whereas the other pages on this subject have a link to the correct cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.150.184.42 (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted that too. But since both images are non-free, I think the best fix is to remove it entirely rather than replace it with the controversial one. It is enough to display it in the Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia article. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Internet censorship in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet censorship in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Internet censorship in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Age verification

I've added a subsection describing the government's intention to enforce age verification on websites under the Digital Economy Act 2017. It's still unclear whether this will actually happen, but they have passed the necessary legislation, and repeatedly stated that this will be rolled out Real Soon Now. According to inews.co.uk, "Any porn site that fails to comply with the news[sic] rules will face a fine of up to £250,000, or a blanket block by UK internet service providers."

-- The Anome (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1&oldid=1238403048"