by Mike Masnick
Wed, Dec 10th 2008 4:54pm
In the wake of the UK Internet Watch Foundation's block of a particular Wikipedia page for what it claimed was illegal child pornography, and the group's subsequent reversal of that decision, the EFF is now asking will IWF be held responsible for the unintended consequences of its unregulated ability to ban websites? In this case, the action lead to a chain of events that blocked a significant number of UK Wikipedia users from being able to edit any page on the site. The EFF points out that the IWF's reversal on the ban was for all the wrong reasons: rather than it being because the image was old or widespread -- the group never should have put up the ban in the first place, recognizing that Wikipedia's open group review process is a lot more effective than IWF's arbitrary and secretive process.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- UK Home Secretary: I Need People Who Understand The Necessary Hashtags To Censor Bad People Online
- China Clamps Down On Another Serious Threat To The Middle Kingdom: Western Animal Cartoon Books For Children
- Georgia Lawmakers Look To Go Down Porn-Censoring Unconstitutional Rabbit Hole
- UK Court Grants First Live Blocking Order To Stop New Infringing Streams As Soon As They Start
- 'Fake News' Now Means Whatever People Want It To Mean, And Legislating It Away Is A Slippery Slope Toward Censorship