Would Zooniverse <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooniverse> potentially be
caught up in it? It is a citizen science website, and has UGC, eg: comments
and discussion here:
As I understand it, the comments are very much in response to datasets from
the content provider - and are one way in which people contribute to the
crowdsourcing - so perhaps it would be exempt? But since the point of the
website is to encourage interactions between a community and datasets maybe
it's not a clear cut case.
On Thu, 18 May 2023 at 10:23, Phil Bradley-Schmieg <pbradley(a)wikimedia.org>
Hello, hive mind - with all this talk of whether our
Wiktionary!) should be caught by the UK OSB, I was hoping to crowdsource an
answer to the question: who else might be unfortunate bycatch for this
ill-scoped "online safety" law?
I'll set out the key definition below, and hopefully you'll have some
ideas. I'll start the ball rolling with *OpenStreetMap* and *FixMyStreet*
For context: we're hoping to build support for an additional exemption for
services *"provided for the purpose of indexing, manipulation, discussion
and/or making available of content in the public interest, including but
not limited to historical, academic, artistic, educational, encyclopaedic,
journalistic, and/or statistical content"*. It'd be helpful to have
other examples of good projects that would benefit from being spared the
OSB's requirements, not least all the red tape that it requires!
*Scope of the OSB **(ignoring parts dedicated to porn sites - and
glossing over a couple of smaller details, such as how combination services
a. Applies to any “User-to-user service” and “search service” that "has
links with the UK" (e.g. UK users) and isn't exempt.
b. A U2U service "means an internet service by means of which content that
is generated directly on the service by a user of the service, or uploaded
to or shared on the service by a user of the service, may be encountered by
another user, or other users, of the service (...) it does not matter if
content is actually shared with another user or users as long as a service
has a functionality that allows such sharing". It also "does not matter
what proportion of content on a service is" UGC.
c. A search service is "an internet service that is, or includes, a search
engine", that is run by the provider of that site (rather than just
embedding Google Search into your own), but "does not include a service
which enables a person to search just one website or database."
*Exemptions are set out in Schedule 1. These include:*
1. Services where the UGC is limited to
- emails, or SMS/MMS;
- one-to-one live aural communications;
- comments or reviews relating to the provider's own content;
- sharing of such comments or reviews (about a provider's own content)
on a different internet service;
- services limiting user expression to like/dislikes buttons, emojis,
yes/no voting, or rating/scoring;
(but the exemptions above do NOT apply if regulated provider pornographic
content is published or displayed on the service)
"Provider content" is "content published on a service by the provider of
the service or by a person acting on behalf of the provider (including
where the publication of the content is effected or controlled by means of
software or an automated tool or algorithm applied by the provider or by a
person acting on behalf of the provider)."
So that would include, say, guest posters on your own blog, or columnists
on the Daily Mail website, but is unlikely to include WMF projects (since
contributors aren't acting "on behalf of" WMF).
2. Intranets and search engines that are run internally by *businesses.*
3. Services provided by UK public bodies or foreign sovereign powers
(except for childcare services, which have their own narrower exemption).
4. Certain UK-regulated (e.g. Ofsted-regulated) education/childcare
Thanks in advance!
*Phil Bradley-Schmieg* (he/him)
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
NOTICE: *This message might have confidential or legally privileged
information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice
to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see
our **legal disclaimer*
Wikimedia UK mailing list
Dr Richard Nevell (he/him)
Programme Manager and Connected Heritage Project Lead
Wikimedia UK <https://wikimedia.org.uk/> is the national chapter for the
global Wikimedia open knowledge movement.
Follow us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/wikimediauk>, Facebook
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/496119>, and Instagram
Wikimedia UK is a registered charity in England and Wales No.1144513
No. SC048644. Company Limited by Guarantee, Registration No. 6741827.
Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5-11 Lavington Street, London