[HN Gopher] Lfgss shutting down 16th March 2025 (day before Onli...
___________________________________________________________________
Lfgss shutting down 16th March 2025 (day before Online Safety Act
is enforced)
figured this might be interesting... I run just over 300 forums,
for a monthly audience of 275k active users. most of this is on
Linode instances and Hetzner instances, a couple of the larger fora
go via Cloudflare, but the rest just hits the server. and it's all
being shut down. the UK Online Safety Act creates a massive
liability, and whilst at first glance the risk seems low the
reality is that moderating people usually provokes ire from those
people, if we had to moderate them because they were a threat to
the community then they are usually the kind of people who get
angry. in 28 years of running forums, as a result of moderation
I've had people try to get the domain revoked, fake copyright
notices, death threats, stalkers (IRL and online)... as a forum
moderator you are known, and you are a target, and the Online
Safety Act creates a weapon that can be used against you. the risk
is no longer hypothetical, so even if I got lawyers involved to be
compliant I'd still have the liability and risk. in over 28 years
I've run close to 500 fora in total, and they've changed so many
lives. I created them to provide a way for those without families
to build families, to catch the waifs and strays, and to try to
hold back loneliness, depression, and the risk of isolation and
suicide... and it worked, it still works. but on 17th March 2025
it will become too much, no longer tenable, the personal liability
and risks too significant. I guess I'm just the first to name a
date, and now we'll watch many small communities slowly shutter.
the Online Safety Act was supposed to hold big tech to account, but
in fact they're the only ones who will be able to comply... it
consolidates more on those platforms.
Author : buro9
Score : 284 points
Date : 2024-12-16 17:18 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lfgss.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lfgss.com)
| superkuh wrote:
| People seem to forget that the more legislation there is around
| something the more it is only feasible to do if you are a
| corporate person. Human persons just don't have the same rights
| or protections from liabilty.
| SteveNuts wrote:
| It also raises the barrier to entry for newcomers, ensuring
| established large players continue to consolidate power, since
| they have the means to deflect and defend themselves from these
| regulations (unless there are specific carve-outs in place, of
| course).
| morkalork wrote:
| This effectively makes censorship much simpler for the
| government, no need to chase down a million little sites,just
| casually lean on the few big ones remaining.
| SteveNuts wrote:
| Skying too! Way fewer taps required.
| mattigames wrote:
| It's not like there are laws that are more lenient with non-
| profits or with tiny companies right?
| superkuh wrote:
| The EU's digital markets act is one that got that right and I
| love it. But it's the exception to the rule. The vast
| majority of such laws are for the benefit of the corporations
| themselves, despite any ostensible purposes. And this is
| definitely in that latter category.
| Vespasian wrote:
| Also a lot of other EU regulations do the same.
|
| Sometimes it's explicitly mentioned but oftentimes it's
| behind "appropriate and proportionate measures"
| superkuh wrote:
| But most don't. GDPR for example. It's pretty wack that
| random people coming to my neighborhood BBQ can demand I
| give them the backyard surveillance camera recording or
| force me to delete it (a metaphor for a personal website
| logs). Such makes perfect sense for a corporation but
| none when applied to a human person and context.
|
| We should make the laws for our digital spaces for human
| person use cases first, not corporate person use cases.
| Even if it's in the sense of trying to protect humans
| from corporations.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| Indeed, or VATMOSS, which made all small merchants move
| their ecommerces to Amazon, Gumroad (and Paddle) to avoid
| the complexity
| hyperman1 wrote:
| Good news:
|
| https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
| content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
|
| 2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of
| personal data: (c) by a natural person in the course of a
| purely personal or household activity;
| graemep wrote:
| That does not include security cameras:
| https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-
| usi...
| hyperman1 wrote:
| From that link: If your CCTV system
| captures images of people outside the boundary of your
| private domestic property...
|
| Most European countries have laws for recording spaces
| not your own. They typically predate the GDPR by decades.
| AFAIK, they are not harmonized, except for a tiny bit by
| the GDPR.
|
| If I understand it well, this is a big difference between
| the USA where you can mostly record the public space and
| create databases of what everyone does in public. IN
| Europe (even outside the EU), there is a basic
| expectation of privacy even in public spaces. You are
| allowed to make short term recordings, do journalism, and
| have random people accidentally wander in and out of your
| recording. Explicitly targetting specific people or long-
| term recording is somewhere between frowned upon to flat
| out illegal.
| froh wrote:
| "glad that EU overregulation doesn't hamper the freedom of
| the United kingdom any more."
|
| what can we do about this creep up of totalitarian
| surveillance plutocracy?
|
| sweet were the 1990s with a dream.of.information access for
| all.
|
| little did we know we were the information being accessed.
|
| srry
|
| very un-HN-y.. maybe it's just the time of the year but
| this really pulls me down currently.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| This is something the EU got right for once in the DMA/DSA: It
| only applies starting from a certain, large size - if you're
| that big, you can afford the overhead.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| If you read the guidance:
|
| https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/onli...
|
| It amounts to your basic terms of service. It means that you'll
| need to moderate your forums, and prove that you have a policy
| for moderation. (basically what all decent forums do anyway)
| The crucial thing is that you need to record that you've done
| it, and reassessed it. and prove "you understand the 17
| priority areas"
|
| Its similar for what a trustee of a small charity is supposed
| to do each year for its due diligence.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| Most people don't have time to wade through that amount of
| bureaucratic legalese, much less put it into practice.
| mulmen wrote:
| Is the trustee of a small charity on the hook for
| PS18,000,000 in minimum fines?
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Trustees for small charities can be personally liable for
| unlimited amounts.
|
| GDPR, Safeguarding, liability for the building you operate
| in, money laundering. there are lots of laws you are liable
| for.
| andrewaylett wrote:
| The _maximum_ fines are 10% of "qualifying worldwide
| revenue", or PS18M, whichever is larger. This is an
| exercise in stopping companies from claiming tiny revenues
| when they're actually much larger, rather than fining
| _genuinely_ tiny companies (or individuals) a ridiculous
| multiple of their value (or wealth).
|
| Plenty of things in UK law attract "an unlimited fine", but
| even that doesn't lead to people actually being fined
| amounts greater than all the money that's ever existed.
| sunshowers wrote:
| Sounds like a legally risky environment. One of the
| biggest things we've understood about the world over the
| last century has been that commerce flourishes under an
| environment of legal certainty.
| pembrook wrote:
| Yep super simple. You just have to make individual value
| judgements every day on thousands of pieces of content for
| SEVENTEEN highly specific priority areas. Then keep detailed
| records on each value judgement such that it can hold up to
| legal scrutiny from an activist court official. Easy peasy.
| aimazon wrote:
| Any competent forum operator is already doing all of this
| (and more) just without the government-imposed framework.
| Would the OP allow CSAM to be posted on their website? No.
| Would the OP contact the authorities if they caught someone
| distributing CSAM on their website? Yes. Forum
| administrators are famous (to the point of being a meme)
| for their love of rules and policies and procedures.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| You just have to make individual value judgements every
| day on thousands of pieces of content for SEVENTEEN
| highly specific priority areas. Then keep
| detailed records on each value judgement such that it can
| hold up to legal scrutiny from an activist court
| official.
|
| > Any competent forum operator is already doing all of
| this
|
| What is your evidence that the record keeping described
| by the parent is routine among competent forum operators?
| KaiserPro wrote:
| If you read that guidance, it wants you to have a
| moderation policy for 17 specific priority areas. You need
| prove you can demonstrate that you have thought about it.
| You need to have a paper trail that says you have a policy
| and that its a policy. You _could_ be issued with a
| "information notice", which you have to comply with. Now,
| you could get that already, with the RIPA, as a
| communications provider.
|
| this is similar to running a cricket club, or scout club
|
| For running a scout association each lesson could
| technically require an individual risk assessment for every
| piece of equipment, and lesson. The hall needs to be safe,
| and you need to prove that it's safe. Also GDPR, and
| safeguarding, background checks, money laundering.
|
| > hold up to legal scrutiny from an activist court official
|
| Its not the USA. activist court officials require a
| functioning court system. Plus common law has the concept
| of reasonable. A moderated forum will be of a much higher
| standard of moderation than facebook/twitter/tiktok.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _as a forum moderator you are known, and you are a target_
|
| I want to emphasize just how true this is, in case anyone thinks
| this is hyperbole.
|
| I managed a pissant VBulletin forum, and moderated a pretty small
| subreddit. The former got me woken up at 2, 3, 4am with phone
| calls because someone got banned and was upset about it. The
| latter got me death threats from someone who lived in my
| neighborhood, knew approximately where I lived, and knew my full
| name. (Would they have gone beyond the tough-guy-words-online
| stage? Who knows. I didn't bother waiting to find out, and
| resigned as moderator immediately and publicly.)
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > I managed a pissant VBulletin forum, and ... got me woken up
| at 2, 3, 4am with phone calls because someone got banned and
| was upset about it.
|
| I home-hosted a minecraft server and was repeatedly DDoS'd.
| Don't underestimate disgruntled 10yo's.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| The whole government page at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-
| safety/illegal-and-harmful-c... has an off-putting and
| threatening tone, celebrating how wonderful it is that online
| spaces will be tied in bureaucratic knots. Disgraceful.
| alwa wrote:
| The hacker in me is real grumpy about all this, and believes
| that they're nannying a whole lot of the dumb superficial stuff
| while pushing serious malfeasance underground.
|
| But they make a good point: if you exclude the smaller
| providers, that's where the drugs and CSAM and the freewheeling
| dialog go. Assuming it's their policy goal to deter these
| categories of speech, I'm not sure how you do that without a
| net fine enough to scoop up the 4chans of the world too.
|
| It's not the behavior of a confident, open, healthy society,
| though...
| baggy_trough wrote:
| The cure is worse than the disease.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > if you exclude the smaller providers, that's where the
| drugs and CSAM and the freewheeling dialog go.
|
| - Bad actors go everywhere now.
|
| - PS18 million fines seem like a fairly unhinged cannon to
| aim at small webistes.
|
| - A baseless accusation is enough to trigger a risk of life-
| changing fines. Bad actors don't just sell drugs and
| freewheel; they also falsely accuse.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| 18m maximum fine.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| As a quick cheatsheet, laws targeting CSAM are always just
| tools to go after other things.
|
| CSAM is absolutely horrible.. but CSAM laws don't stop CSAM
| (primarily this happens from group defections).
|
| Instead it's just a form of tarring, in this case unliked
| speech, by associating it with the most horrible thing anyone
| can think of.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I host a Mastodon server in the US. I almost wish I could get a
| legal threat from the UK so that I could print it and hang it
| on my wall as a conversation piece.
|
| I have zero legal connection to the UK and their law doesn't
| mean jack to me. I look forward to thoroughly ignoring it, in
| the same way that I thoroughly ignore other dumb laws in other
| distant jurisdictions.
|
| UK, look back on this as the day -- well, _another_ day -- when
| you destroyed your local tech in favor of the rest of the
| world.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| It's insane that they never carved out any provisions for "non
| big-tech".
|
| I feel like the whole time this was being argued and passed,
| everyone in power just considered the internet to be the major
| social media sites and never considered that a single person or
| smaller group will run a site.
|
| IMO I think that you're going to get two groups of poeple emerge
| from this. One group will just shut down their sites to avoid
| running a fowl of the rules and the other group will go the "go
| fuck yourself" route and continue to host anonymously.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > I feel like the whole time this was being argued and passed,
| everyone in power just considered the internet to be the major
| social media sites and never considered that a single person or
| smaller group will run a site.
|
| Does this shock you? I don't recall a time in memory where a
| politician discussing technology was at best, cringe and at
| worst, completely incompetent and factually wrong.
| mulmen wrote:
| Off the top of my head Oregon Senator Ron Wyden. I'm sure
| there are others. Millennials are in office now.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > Off the top of my head Oregon Senator Ron Wyden. I'm sure
| there are others
|
| If we exclude politicians whose tech awareness is curated
| by lobbyists, Ron Wyden may be the entire list.
| mulmen wrote:
| Ok, did you perform this audit of all US politicians? Or
| are you just spreading FUD?
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| I don't think FUD is on the table at this stage in the
| discussion. And I'm not sure why you chose a
| confrontational stance for your question.
|
| But for an answer, I've done what folks do - spent
| decades carefully listening to legislators (and judges!)
| reveal their expertise in the fields I work and interact
| with.
|
| Ron Wyden aside, authentic technical competency from
| legislators is so uncommon it stand out. Glaringly. What
| technical acumen we do get pretty much always rhymes with
| lobbyists talking points.
|
| I expect my perspective to be boringly familiar here.
|
| And AFAIK, we _don 't_ have any other Ron Wydens serving
| in Congress or coming onboard.
|
| That is, someone with the basic technical understanding
| to foresee reasonable downstream consequences of the laws
| they vote on. Not someone with a minimal technical
| awareness that was crafted to be a lobbyists tool.
|
| I will be genuinely grateful if someone would correct me
| here.
| meiraleal wrote:
| > Millennials are in office now.
|
| The most stupid influencers, at least in my country.
| matthewmorgan wrote:
| I'm sure Big Tech helped to write the bill.
| graemep wrote:
| > It's insane that they never carved out any provisions for
| "non big-tech".
|
| Very little legislation does.
|
| Two things my clients have dealt with: VATMOSS and GDPR. The
| former was fixed with a much higher ceiling for compliance but
| not before causing a lot of costs and lost revenue to small
| businesses. GDPR treats a small businesses and non profits that
| just keep simple lists for people (customers, donors, members,
| parishioners, etc.) has to put effort into complying even
| thought they have a relatively small number of people's data
| and do not use it outside their organisation. The rules are the
| same as for a huge social network that buys and sells
| information about hundreds of millions of people.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Do you know a small business that has got into trouble with
| GDPR?
| dangrossman wrote:
| You can filter this list to see 200+ GDPR fines assigned to
| sole proprietors, the smallest of small businesses,
| individuals that haven't even registered a separate entity
| for their business:
|
| https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
|
| They're only cataloging the (2500+) publicly known ones,
| most of which have a link to a news article. As an example:
| some guy in Croatia emailed a couple websites he thought
| might be interested in his marketing services, and provided
| a working opt-out link in his cold emails. One of them
| reported the email to the Italian Data Protection Authority
| who then put him through an international investigation and
| fined him 5000 euro.
|
| "Assuming here that the reasons expressed in the
| aforementioned document have been fully recalled,
| [individual] was charged with violating articles 5, par. 1,
| letter a), 6, par. 1, letter a) of the Regulation and art.
| 130 of the Code, since the sending of promotional
| communications via e-mail was found to have been carried
| out without the consent of the interested parties.
| Therefore, it is believed that - based on the set of
| elements indicated above - the administrative sanction of
| payment of a sum of EUR5,000.00 (five thousand) equal to
| 0.025% of the maximum statutory sanction of EUR20 million
| should be applied."
| jimnotgym wrote:
| To clarify, I'm not interested in this, because it
| doesn't answer the question at all. I don't want a
| Googled answer, I want personal experience.
|
| For instance, I know of a company that flouted GDPR and
| got multiple letters off the ICO trying to help them with
| compliance before finally, months later, they ended up in
| court and got a very small fine.
| aimazon wrote:
| I don't understand this decision. Running a website as an
| individual is a liability risk for all sorts of reasons for which
| there are simple (and cheap) mitigations. Even if you believe
| this legislation is a risk, there are options other than shutting
| down. The overreaction here is no different than when GDPR came
| in, and we all collectively lost our minds and started shutting
| things down and then discovered there was zero consequence for
| mom-and-pop websites. I assume this isn't a genuine post and is
| actually an attempt at some sort of protest, with no intention of
| actually shutting down the websites. Or, more likely, they're
| just old and tired and ready to move on from this period of their
| life, running these websites.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| What are the simple and cheap mitigations you have in mind?
| aimazon wrote:
| Don't run a website personally, set up a separate legal
| entity. The UK is one of the easiest places in the world to
| do this and has well-understood legal entities that fit the
| model of a community-operated organisation (i.e: "community
| interest company"). The fact that the OP is running such a
| large community as an individual is bonkers in the first
| place, independent of this new act.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| Personally, I think it's bonkers that an individual can't
| run an online forum.
| aimazon wrote:
| I agree but that ship sailed a decade ago. There's no
| additional risk with the new bill, it's more of the same.
| If there are concerns about liability because of this new
| bill then there should be concerns about liability
| already.
|
| I sympathise with the OP because at some point everyone
| becomes too old to deal with the headaches of running a
| community. I have no opposition to their choice to shut
| down the forum. I just don't believe liability as a
| result of the new bill is the reason.
| em-bee wrote:
| but there is additional risk and liability, because the
| new act creates more work in order to be compliant (which
| is what increases the liability), and it increases the
| risk of being attacked.
|
| _there 's never been an instance of any of the
| proclaimed things that this act protects [...] people
| from_, so he should be safe, right?
|
| but despite this, he is already being attacked, and those
| attacks will not just continue but they are likely to
| increase because the attack surface has become larger.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _I just don 't believe liability as a result of the new
| bill is the reason._
|
| It seems like OP is commenting on this thread; you can
| accuse them of lying directly, if you'd like.
| tempfile wrote:
| Are you claiming that setting up a CIC removes individual
| liability for wrongdoing? So, I set up a CIC for running
| forums, with $0 of assets and negligible running costs,
| then in the event of a fine I'm scot free?
| aimazon wrote:
| Yes. A CIC is just a limited company with some additional
| community interest obligations. You can set up a limited
| company to shield yourself from liability (i.e: if your
| website is sued by a user, your personal assets aren't at
| risk) and only in exceptional cases (where serious
| lawbreaking is involved) could you be held personally
| liable.
|
| Rightly or wrongly, limited companies in the UK provide a
| high degree of protection for wrongdoing. Defrauding HMRC
| out of hundreds of thousands of pounds and suffering no
| consequence is happening day in day out. An Ofcom fine is
| nothing by comparison.
| morkalork wrote:
| How would that work if someone set up a CIC, used it to
| rent a VPS and did some grey-hat hacking activities?
| akoboldfrying wrote:
| 1. Thanks for this very helpful information about how
| some seemingly quite simple legal manoeuvring can be used
| to dodge 99% of this law.
|
| 2. Doesn't the fact that simple legal manoeuvring can be
| used to dodge 99% of this law make the law (and laws like
| it) farcical on its face? Merely an elaborate set of
| extra hoops that only serves to punish the naive, while
| increasing everyone's compliance costs?
| aimazon wrote:
| The law is designed to target large companies that aren't
| seen as doing enough to prevent harm on the internet.
| Setting up a CIC doesn't dodge the law, the legal entity
| (the CIC) remains accountable for conduct on the website.
| Setting up a CIC removes the risk from the individual
| website operator because they're no longer operating the
| website, instead the website is operated by a separate
| legal entity. The website could still be held accountable
| for violating the law but the consequence would be the
| CIC is fined, not the individual behind it. The same
| principle as any limited liability company.
| akoboldfrying wrote:
| >the consequence would be the CIC is fined
|
| Does this _in practice_ mean that the original human
| person would have to pay that fine? What would the
| consequences likely be for the original human person?
|
| If those consequences remain severe, then it's not a
| simple legal manoeuvre after all. This reduces
| farcicality, but also means there's no way for an
| individual to safely run this kind of website.
|
| If those consequences round to zero, my next question
| would be: Can a large company spin up a CIC just to
| shield itself in the same way? (If so, it seems the farce
| would be complete.)
| mosburger wrote:
| In the U.S. we have the concept of "piercing the
| corporate veil" whereby if you can prove that a LLC
| (effectively a corporate entity created to shield owner's
| liability) is a flimsy legal device whose only intent is
| to skirt laws like this one, you are able to go after the
| LLC owner personally anyway.
|
| Does the UK have a similar concept?
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Yes it has the concept. But like the previous poster
| said, it can only be used in very serious criminal
| wrongdoing.
| graemep wrote:
| Assuming you regard the cost of keeping and filing
| accounts and other paperwork, annual registration fees,
| etc. as negligible yes.
| graemep wrote:
| It raises the cost and hassle involved from "I need a cheap
| hosting package" to I need to do paperwork, keep and file
| accounts, etc.
| EpicQuest_246 wrote:
| I used to frequent the forum about 15 or so years ago. This guy
| is very level headed and has been around the block a lot.
| Therefore I don't believe this is purely performative.
| aimazon wrote:
| I like and respect the OP and their work. I do not think this
| is consistent with his previous levelheadedness.
|
| edit: removed unintentional deadnaming
| EpicQuest_246 wrote:
| As I said I haven't frequented the forum for years, so
| maybe things have changed but I highly doubt this is a knee
| jerk reaction.
| buro9 wrote:
| thank you for removing the deadname.
| ceinewydd wrote:
| A fair number of sites hosted and operated outside the European
| Union reacted to GDPR by instituting blocks of EU users, many
| returning HTTP 451. Regardless of whether you believe GDPR is a
| good idea or not (that's beyond the scope of this comment), the
| disparity in statutory and regulatory approaches plus widely
| varying (often poor) levels of 'plain language' clarity in
| obligations, and inconsistent enforcement, it all leads to
| _entirely understandable_ decisions like this and more of a
| divided internet.
|
| Thank you to those who have tirelessly run these online
| communities for decades, I'm sorry we can't collectively elect
| lawmakers who are more educated about the real challenges
| online, and thoughtful on real ways to solve them.
| buro9 wrote:
| the real risk I see is that as it's written, and as Ofcom are
| communicating, there is now a digital version of a SWATing for
| disgruntled individuals.
|
| the liability is very high, and whilst I would perceive the
| risk to be low if it were based on how we moderate... the real
| risk is what happens when one moderates another person.
|
| as I outlined, whether it's attempts to revoke the domain names
| with ICANN, or fake DMCA reports to hosting companies, or
| stalkers, or pizzas being ordered to your door, or being signed
| up to porn sites, or being DOX'd, or being bombarded with
| emails... all of this stuff has happened, and happens.
|
| but the new risk is that there is nothing about the Online
| Safety Act or Ofcom's communication that gives me confidence
| that this cannot be weaponised against myself, as the person
| who ultimately does the moderation and runs the site.
|
| and that risk changes even more in the current culture war
| climate, given that I've come out, and that those attacks now
| take a personal aspect too.
|
| the risk feels too high for me personally. it's, a lot.
| dom96 wrote:
| None of this seems to describe exactly what the problem with this
| new act is. Can someone ELI5 what this new law does that means
| it's no longer safe to run your own forum?
| KMnO4 wrote:
| From Wikipedia:
|
| > The act creates a new duty of care of online platforms,
| requiring them to take action against illegal, or legal but
| "harmful", content from their users. Platforms failing this
| duty would be liable to fines of up to PS18 million or 10% of
| their annual turnover, whichever is higher.
| reginald78 wrote:
| Doesn't that 18 million minimum disproportionately effect
| smaller operations risk wise? Or is that the point?
| intunderflow wrote:
| The purpose of a system is what it does
| Arathorn wrote:
| Yes. The regulation is set up to destroy smaller startups &
| organisations; the only folks who have a hope of complying
| with it are Big Tech.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| AKA "regulatory capture".
| alwa wrote:
| Yes, but it sounds like part of the point is that you want
| to put the fear of the Lord into small-fry operators.
|
| They mention especially in their CSAM discussion that, in
| practice, a lot of that stuff ends up being distributed by
| smallish operators, by intention or by negligence--so if
| your policy goal is to deter it, you have to be able to
| spank those operators too. [0]
|
| _> In response to feedback, we have expanded the scope of
| our CSAM hash-matching measure to capture smaller file
| hosting and file storage services, which are at
| particularly high risk of being used to distribute CSAM._
|
| Surely we can all think of web properties that have gone to
| seed (and spam) after they outlive their usefulness to
| their creators.
|
| I wonder how much actual "turnover" something like 4chan
| turns over, and how they would respond to the threat of a
| 10% fine vs an PS18mm one...
|
| [0] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-
| harmful-c...
| viraptor wrote:
| It's a minimum maximum. The amount is still "up to" and
| courts rarely assign the maximum penalty for anything. It
| seems aimed at platforms which really break the rules, but
| are run at minimal cost. Basically a value of "what do you
| charge a minimal forum run at cost, with sole purpose of
| breaking all these rules".
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Sure, it's "up to", but how low can you assume things
| will go? 5% would still destroy someone.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| It is not 18 million minimum, it is up to 18 million...
| unless you are so big that the second criteria affects you,
| then it is up to that.
| Tallianar wrote:
| I think that the fact that no one is fully sure is part of the
| problem.
|
| The act is intentionally very vague and broad.
|
| Generally, the gist is that it's up to the platforms themselves
| to assess and identify risks of "harm", implement safety
| measures, keep records and run audits. The guidance on what
| that means is very loose, but some examples might mean
| stringent age verifications, proactive and effective moderation
| and thorough assessment of all algorithms.
|
| If you were to ever be investigated, it will be up to someone
| to decide if your measures were good or you have been found
| lacking.
|
| This means you might need to spend significant time making sure
| that your platform can't allow "harm" to happen, and maybe
| you'll need to spend money on lawyers to review your "audits".
|
| The repercussions of being found wanting can be harsh, and so,
| one has to ask if it's still worth it to risk it all to run
| that online community?
| tracker1 wrote:
| bearing in mind, this is also a country that will jail you
| for a meme post online.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| One that encourages people to riot in the streets? Yes we
| proudly jail the scum that do that
| beefnugs wrote:
| The full agenda of course is: if we jail someone for the
| meme, then we get to force the company to remove the meme,
| and then we get to destroy the company if they do not
| comply with exacting specifications within exact times.
| Thus full control of speech, teehee modern technology
| brings modern loopholes! "shut up peon, you still have full
| right to go into your front yard and say your meme to the
| squirrels"
| jimnotgym wrote:
| > The act is intentionally very vague and broad
|
| Exactly the complaint that everyone on here made about GDPR,
| saying the sky would fall in. If you read UK law like an
| American lawyer you will find it very scary.
|
| But we don't have political prosecuters out to make a name
| for themselves, so it works ok for us.
| lotharcable2 wrote:
| It is essentially requiring tech companies to work for the UK
| government as part of law enforcement. They are required to
| monitor and censor users or face fines and Ofcom has the
| ability to shutdown things they don't like.
|
| This basically ensures that the only people allowed to host
| online services for other people in the UK will be large
| corporations. As they are the only ones that can afford the
| automation and moderation requirements imposed by this bill.
|
| You should be able to self-host content, but you can't do
| something like operate a forums website or other smaller social
| media platform unless you can afford to hire lawyers and spend
| thousands of dollars a month hiring moderators and/or
| implementing a bullet proof moderation system.
|
| Otherwise you risk simply getting shutdown by Ofcom. Or you can
| do everything yo are supposed to do and get shutdown anyways.
| Good luck navigating their appeals processes.
| dom96 wrote:
| I don't mind getting shut down so much as I mind getting a
| fine for millions when my small little website doesn't make
| any money.
|
| But surely no right minded judge would do such a thing,
| right?
| jimnotgym wrote:
| UK fines are proportionate. So no. No UK judge will fine a
| small website 18m
| alangibson wrote:
| The UK has just given up on being in any way internationally
| relevant. If the City of London financial district disappeared,
| within 10 years we'd all forget that it's still a country.
| observationist wrote:
| How much damage can they withstand before they figure out how
| to stop hurting themselves? I wouldn't touch UK investment with
| a ten foot pole.
| intunderflow wrote:
| A lot more, the Online Safety Act is just a symptom of the
| structural problems (Lack of de-facto governance, A
| hopelessly out of touch political class, Voting systems that
| intentionally don't represent the voting results, etc).
|
| Argentina has had nearly 100 years of decline, Japan is onto
| its third lost decade. The only other party in the UK that
| has a chance of being elected (because of the voting system)
| is lead by someone who thinks sandwiches are not real [1].
| It's entirely possible the UK doesn't become a serious
| country in our lifetimes.
|
| [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-tory-leader-
| sandwiches-no...
| alangibson wrote:
| Argentina is a great analog for the UK, time shifted by
| century. Both former first-class economies doomed to a long
| decline by bad policies that elites refuse to change.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| Hard disagree. Argentina is only similar to the UK
| insofar as they both deindustrialized starting in the
| 80s. Besides that, I have no idea why it would be a
| "great analog".
| meiraleal wrote:
| a hundreds year ago Argentine had a population of less
| than 8million people and the 8o biggest territory of
| highly fertile land. That's not even 20% of the current
| population. Argentina was never a developed country.
| kragen wrote:
| Argentina was a rich country but never a rich
| _industrialized_ country. At the time we were rich, we
| were exporting beef and importing everything that came
| from a factory. Later attempts at industrialization,
| after global protectionism and domestic infighting had
| already plunged us into relative poverty, were based on
| the flawed paradigm of import-substitution
| industrialization, whereas the UK was transitioning from
| mercantilism to Smithian liberalism when they
| industrialized, both of which put the highest possible
| priority on exports. London is the world 's second
| biggest financial hub, a fact that accounts for a
| significant part of the English economy, while Buenos
| Aires was never a financial hub for anyone but
| Argentines, and even we bank in London, Omaha, or
| Montevideo whenever we have the choice.
|
| Industrialization was somewhat successful; I am eating
| off an Argentine plate, on an Argentine table, with
| Argentine utensils (ironically made of stainless steel
| rather than, as would be appropriate for Argentina,
| silver) while Argentine-made buses roar by outside. A
| century ago, when we were rich, all those would have been
| imported from Europe or the US, except the table. My
| neighborhood today is full of machine shops and heavy
| machinery repair shops to support the industrial park
| across the street. Even the TV showing football news
| purports to be Argentine, but actually it's almost
| certainly assembled in the Tierra del Fuego duty-free
| zone from a Korean or Chinese kit.
|
| There is not much similarity.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Well, I guess who decides the line between basic
| industrialization and import substitution? The
| bondholders?
| EpicQuest_246 wrote:
| > "I'm not a sandwich person, I don't think sandwiches are
| a real food, it's what you have for breakfast." The Tory
| leader went on to confirm that she "will not touch bread if
| it's moist.
|
| The headline is clickbait. She didn't say that sandwiches
| are not real. She is saying that she doesn't believe it is
| a proper lunch/meal.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| >A hopelessly out of touch political class
|
| Orwell pointed this out in _England your England_ which was
| written during the Blitz. Many of the problems he described
| have only got worse in the decades since he wrote about
| them in my opinion. While the essay is a bit dated now (it
| predates the post-war era of globalisation for example
| which created new axes in UK politics) I still think it 's
| essential background reading for people who want to know
| what's wrong with the UK, and it's an excellent example of
| political writing in general.
| meiraleal wrote:
| I don't think sandwiches are "real food" too, what's the
| problem with that specific case?
| luma wrote:
| This feels relevant to your comment: https://archive.is/9V2Bf
|
| Orgs are already fleeing LSEG for deeper capital markets in the
| US.
| FredPret wrote:
| As an aside, the UK is a great tourist destination, especially
| if you leave London right after landing.
|
| Beautiful landscape, the best breakfast around, really nice
| people, tons of sights to see.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| Yes the end result of rich western nations that get strangled
| by government is to be a museum
| FredPret wrote:
| I agree it's tragic but out of all the ways a culture can
| strangle itself, museumification is the least horrible
| bogwog wrote:
| > this is not a venture that can afford compliance costs... and
| if we did, what remains is a disproportionately high personal
| liability for me, and one that could easily be weaponised by
| disgruntled people who are banned for their egregious behaviour
|
| I'm a little confused about this part. Does the Online Safety Act
| create personal liabilities for site operators (EDIT: to clarify:
| would a corporation not be sufficient protection)? Or are they
| referring to harassment they'd receive from disgruntled users?
|
| Also, this is the first I've heard of Microcosm. It looks like
| some nice forum software and one I maybe would've considered for
| future projects. Shame to see it go.
| akoboldfrying wrote:
| I think OP feels it indirectly creates massive personal
| liabilities for site operators, in that a user can deliberately
| upload illegal material and then report the site under the Act,
| opening the site operator up to PS18M in fines.
|
| This seems very plausible to me, given what they and other
| moderators have said about the lengths some people will go to
| online when they feel antagonised.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Again, sounds like the nonsense spoken on here when GDPR came
| out. Everyone was going to get fined millions. Except people
| with violations actually got compliance advice from the ICO.
| They only got fined (a small amount of money) when they
| totally ignored the ICO
| wccrawford wrote:
| While they could, I'm pretty sure that's already illegal,
| probably in multiple ways.
|
| In the same way that you could be sued for _anything_ , I'm
| sure you could also be dragged to court for things like that
| under this law... And probably under existing laws, too.
|
| That doesn't mean you'll lose, though. It just means you're
| out some time and money and stress.
| radicality wrote:
| The linked page has this phrasing, which I'm not entirely sure
| what it means, but could be understood as personal liability?
|
| > Senior accountability for safety. To ensure strict
| accountability, each provider should name a senior person
| accountable to their most senior governance body for compliance
| with their illegal content, reporting and complaints duties.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| I don't see that makes the person personally liable at all.
| It just gives them a direct line to the compliance board.
| MarkusWandel wrote:
| Is there some generalized law (yet) about unintended
| consequences? For example:
|
| Increase fuel economy -> Introduce fuel economy standards ->
| Economic cars practically phased out in favour of guzzling
| "trucks" that are exempt from fuel economy standards -> Worse
| fuel economy.
|
| or
|
| Protect the children -> Criminalize activites that might in any
| way cause an increase in risk to children -> Best to just keep
| them indoors playing with electronic gadgets -> Increased rates
| of obesity/depression etc -> Children worse off.
|
| As the article itself says: Hold big tech accountable ->
| Introduce rules so hard to comply with that only big tech will be
| able to comply -> Big tech goes on, but indie tech forced
| offline.
| graemep wrote:
| It is also that big business can influence legislators, and
| small business cannot, so big business can influence regulation
| to their own advantage.
| FredPret wrote:
| Politicians should take a mandatory one-week training in:
|
| - very basic macro economics
|
| - very basic game theory
|
| - very basic statistics
|
| Come to think of it, kids should learn this in high school
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| So you are assuming politicians graduate high school? Not in
| my country.
| wat10000 wrote:
| I think you're being overly charitable in thinking this
| happens because they don't understand these things. The main
| thing is that they don't care. The purpose of passing
| legislation to protect the children isn't to protect the
| children, it's to get reelected.
|
| If we can get the voters to understand the things you
| mention, then maybe we'd have a chance.
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| It's more than just politicians not caring: Big Tech firms
| hite people on millions of dollars per year to lobby and
| co-operate with governments, in order to ensure that
| processes like this result in favourable outcomes to them.
| See e.g. Nick Clegg.
| ebiester wrote:
| I think you're being underly charitable. The vast majority
| of congress critters are pretty smart people, and by Jeff
| Jackson's account, even the ones who yell the loudest are
| generally reasonable behind closed doors due to incentives.
|
| The problem is that the real problems are very hard, and
| their job is to simplify it to their constituents well
| enough to keep their jobs, which may or may not line up
| with doing the right thing.
|
| This is a truly hard problem. CSAM is a real problem, and
| those who engage in its distribution are experts in
| subverting the system. So is freedom of expression. So is
| the onerous imposition of regulations.
|
| And any such issue (whether it be transnational migration,
| or infrastructure, or EPA regulations in America, or
| whatever issue you want to bring up) is going to have some
| very complex tradeoffs and even if you have a set of Ph.Ds
| in the room with no political pressure, you are going to
| have uncomfortable tradeoffs.
|
| What if the regulations are bad because the problem is so
| hard we can't make good ones, even with the best and
| brightest?
| wat10000 wrote:
| "Their job is to simplify it to their constituents well
| enough to keep their jobs" sounds awfully similar to what
| I'm saying. Maybe "don't care" is a little too absolute,
| but it doesn't make much difference if they don't care or
| if they care but their priority is still keeping their
| jobs.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| What good would that do? Look who elects them!
| Terr_ wrote:
| It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his
| _re-election_ depends on him not understanding it.
| philjohn wrote:
| Except the gas guzzling large trucks seems to be a uniquely
| north american problem - because of the "work vehicle"
| loophole.
| redleader55 wrote:
| Politicians forced to learn statistics -> Politicians better
| prepared to understand consequences of their actions ->
| Politicians exploit economy better -> Everyone worse off ->
| Law to educate politicians is abolished -> Politicians
| exploit economy nevertheless
|
| Seriously, the problem is not politicians being clueless
| about all the above, but having too much power which makes
| them think they need to solve everything.
| whatever1 wrote:
| Laws are meant to be dynamic. So you iterate on them as you get
| feedback from their implementation
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| > Laws are meant to be dynamic.
|
| The US Supreme Court disagrees. https://www.dentons.com/en/in
| sights/articles/2024/july/3/-/m...
| jtbayly wrote:
| The Supreme Court hasn't and can't say anything against
| laws being updated and changed. What they have prevented is
| those we have elected to make laws delegating that very
| authority to others.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Which in practice means that laws are not going to be
| updated and changed.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| For the time being the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction
| over the UK online safety act
| stego-tech wrote:
| I mean, that's what I call "rules lawyering" in game parlance.
| When someone utilizes the rules in such a way as to cause legal
| harm in service of their own interests, regardless of the
| intent of said rules in preventing harm.
|
| It's why when a law/rule/standard has a carveout for its first
| edge case, it quickly becomes nothing but edge cases all the
| way down. And because language is ever-changing, rules
| lawyering is always possible - and governments must be ever-
| resistant to attempts to rules lawyer by bad actors.
|
| Modern regulations are sorely needed, but we've gone so long
| without meaningful reform that the powers that be have captured
| any potential regulation before it's ever begun. I would think
| most common-sense reforms would say that these rules should be
| more specific in intent and targeting only those institutions
| clearing a specific revenue threshold or user count, but even
| that could be exploited by companies with vast legal teams
| creating new LLCs for every thin sliver of services offered to
| wiggle around such guardrails, or scriptkiddies creating
| millions of bot accounts with a zero-day to trigger compliance
| requirements.
|
| Regulation is a never-ending game. The only reason we "lost" is
| because our opponent convinced us that any regulation is bad.
| This law is awful and nakedly assaults indietech while
| protecting big tech, but we shouldn't give up trying to
| untangle this mess and regulate it properly.
| tracker1 wrote:
| "Gaming The Law"
| humodz wrote:
| There's the Cobra Effect popularized by Freakonomics
|
| Too many cobras > bounty for slain cobras > people start
| breeding them for the bounty > law is revoked > people release
| their cobras > even more cobras around
| cortesoft wrote:
| The Cobra Effect is an example of a Perverse Incentive, which
| is where an attempt to incentivize a behavior ends up
| incentivizing the opposite:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
|
| I think most of the examples fit this, but a few don't.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Is there some generalized law (yet) about unintended
| consequences?
|
| These are not unintended consequences. All media legislation of
| late has been to eliminate all but the companies that are
| largest and closest to government. Clegg works at Facebook now,
| they'd all be happy to keep government offices on the premises
| to ensure compliance; they'd even pay for them.
|
| Western governments are encouraging monopolies in media
| (through legal pressure) in order to suppress speech through
| the voluntary cooperation of the companies who don't want to be
| destroyed. Those companies are not only threatened with the
| stick, but are given the carrots of becoming government
| contractors. There's a revolving door between their c-suites
| and government agencies. Their kids go to the same schools and
| sleep with each other.
| Rygian wrote:
| It's called "Perverse incentive" and Wikipedia runs an
| illustrative set of examples:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
| jimnotgym wrote:
| >Protect the children -> Criminalize activites that might in
| any way cause an increase in risk to children -> Best to just
| keep them indoors playing with electronic gadgets -> Increased
| rates of obesity/depression etc -> Children worse off.
|
| Not sure how keeping kids off the internet keeps them indoors?
| Surely the opposite is true?
| capitainenemo wrote:
| No mention in that example of internet. If I had to think of
| specifics, he's probably talking about the things that fall
| under the category of "free range kids" but also result in
| parents being criminally prosecuted.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| This is a discussion about the UK online safety act! That
| is about the internet isn't it?
| function_seven wrote:
| The other example in the parent comment was about fuel
| economy and trucks. They're just generalized laws about
| unintended consequences.
|
| I used to walk and ride my bike to school. I was in 4th
| grade. 9 years old.
|
| You show me a 9-year-old walking alone to school today,
| and I'll show you a parent who's getting investigated for
| child neglect. It's maddening.
|
| So that chain of consequences means today's kids are
| meant to be watched 24/7, and that usually means they're
| cooped up inside. They're still facing "Stranger Danger"
| (except through Snap or whatever games they're playing),
| and now they're also in also in poorer health.
| indrora wrote:
| In the US at least, we're at a point where letting your kids
| play in your yard is enough to get arrested and jailed with
| child endangerment. Within the last 30 days, a woman has been
| arrested and charged with child endangerment for the crime
| of... letting her child walk to the store [1] and others have
| been jailed for letting their child play outside [2].
|
| So what do you do to entertain children? Use what you have.
| Dunk them on the internet via YouTube first and then let them
| free range because you're tired and can't give a fuck
| anymore.
|
| ^1 https://abcnews.go.com/amp/GMA/Family/mom-arrested-after-
| son... ^2 https://www.aol.com/news/2015-12-03-woman-gets-
| arrested-for-...
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Thanks, I needed that. In a thread full of people
| criticising UK law, I am very happy to have a crazy US
| example to make me feel better.
| josephcsible wrote:
| There's a whole YouTube playlist about that sort of thing:
| https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBuns9Evn1w9XhnH7vVh_7C...
|
| I've heard it called "law of unintended consequences" and
| "cobra effect".
| bboygravity wrote:
| This is what Javier Milei means when he says that everything
| politicians touch turns to shit and therefor government should
| be minimal.
| btown wrote:
| > Introduce rules so hard to comply with that only big tech
| will be able to comply
|
| When intentional, this is Regulatory Capture. Per
| https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp :
|
| > Regulation inherently tends to raise the cost of entry into a
| regulated market because new entrants have to bear not just the
| costs of entering the market but also of complying with the
| regulations. Oftentimes regulations explicitly impose barriers
| to entry, such as licenses, permits, and certificates of need,
| without which one may not legally operate in a market or
| industry. Incumbent firms may even receive legacy consideration
| by regulators, meaning that only new entrants are subject to
| certain regulations.
|
| A system with no regulation can be equally bad for consumers,
| though; there's a fine line between too little and too much
| regulation. The devil, as always, is in the details.
| fjgf wrote:
| Might the author be overreacting a bit to this new law? As I
| understand it, it doesn't put that much of an onerous demand on
| forum operators.
|
| Then again, maybe he's just burnt out from running these sites
| and this was the final straw. I can understand if he wants to
| pack it in after so long, and this is as good reason as any to
| call it a day.
|
| Though, has no-one in that community offered to take over? Forums
| do change hands now and then.
| NilMostChill wrote:
| > Might the author be overreacting a bit to this new law
|
| As i have read it, no, it's worth a read to see for yourself
| though.
|
| > it doesn't put that much of an onerous demand on forum
| operators.
|
| It doesn't until it does, the issue is the massive amount of
| work needed to cover the "what if?".
|
| It's not clear that it doesn't apply and so it will be abused,
| that's how the internet works, DMCA, youtube strikes, domain
| strikes etc.
|
| > Then again, maybe he's just burnt out from running these
| sites and this was the final straw. I can understand if he
| wants to pack it in after so long, and this is as good reason
| as any to call it a day.
|
| Possibly, worth asking.
|
| > Though, has no-one in that community offered to take over?
| Forums do change hands now and then.
|
| Someone else taking over doesn't remove the problem, though
| there might be someone willing to assume the risk.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| If it is anything like GDPR enforcement in the UK, the 'what
| if' situation is Ofcom writing to you asking you to comply.
| meiraleal wrote:
| > Might the author be overreacting a bit to this new law? As I
| understand it, it doesn't put that much of an onerous demand on
| forum operators.
|
| As the manager of a community where people meet in person, I
| understand where he is coming from. Acting like law enforcement
| puts one in a position to confront dangerous individuals
| without authority or weapons. It is literally life-endangering.
| jdsnape wrote:
| I did a double take when I saw this here. I've lurked on LFGSS,
| posted from time to time and bought things through it. Genuinely
| one of the best online communities I've been in, and the best
| cycling adjacent one by far.
|
| Having said all that, I can't criticise the decision. It makes me
| sad to see it and it feels like the end of an era online
| tracker1 wrote:
| Okay, I'm putting up a new bbs in the US that is only going to be
| accessible via SSH modern terminal only... UK users will be more
| than welcome.
|
| I've been wanting to pay with remote modern terminals and Ratatui
| anyway.
| owisd wrote:
| The actual OfCom code of practice is here:
| https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/onli...
|
| A cycling site with 275k MAU would be in the very lowest category
| where compliance is things like 'having a content moderation
| function to review and assess suspected illegal content'. So
| having a report button.
| orf wrote:
| This: OP seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
|
| Im surprised they don't already have some form of report/flag
| button.
| codazoda wrote:
| I'm not so sure. It's a layman's interpretation, but I think
| any "forum" would be multi-risk.
|
| That means you need to do CSAM scanning if you accept images,
| CSAM URL scanning if you accept links, and there's a lot more
| than that to parse here.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| OP isn't throwing the baby with the bathwater and he explains
| it very well in his post: the risk of being sued is too great
| in itself, even if you end up winning the lawsuit.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Answered here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42434349
| owisd wrote:
| I was referring to the actual rules, not what OP feels, or is
| pretending to feel for some agenda.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| The _actual rules_ are vulnerable to this attack.
| https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50
|
| If you think the attack won't be attempted, you've never
| been responsible for an internet forum.
| ziddoap wrote:
| What agenda do you think the OP is following, and why do
| you think they'd do so now after their long (~3 decades!)
| history of running forums? There has been many other pieces
| of legislation in that time, why now?
|
| I tried to think of an agenda, but I'm struggling to come
| up with one. I think OP just doesn't want to be sued over a
| vague piece of legislation, even if it was a battle they
| could win (after a long fight). Just like they said right
| there in the post.
|
| It's kind of rude to imply that this is performative when
| they gave a pretty reasonable explanation.
| edm0nd wrote:
| Kinda an extreme overreaction on OPs part, no?
|
| Just host the place somewhere not in the UK and/or get someone
| who isnt based in the UK to be the main "admin" or "mod" of it.
| Problem solved.
|
| Or even easier:
|
| - Block UK users
|
| - Make a forum that is only for UK users
|
| - just ignore the law and fight it
|
| - setup the forums on bulletproof hosting which ignore such silly
| laws
|
| Seems more like the they are using this reason to just finally be
| done with all this project and move on from it.
| tyushk wrote:
| > Block UK users
|
| The site is primarily focused on London/UK biking enthusiasts.
|
| > Make a forum that is only for UK users
|
| That is the forum for UK users.
|
| > Just ignore the law and fight it
|
| The linked post mentions that the fines for failure to comply
| start at PS18 million. I'd understand not wanting to take that
| risk.
|
| > Setup the forums on bulletproof hosting which ignore such
| silly laws.
|
| I think this is the most viable strategy, but even then the
| site owner incurs risks through ie. ownership of the domain or
| considerable participation.
| crtasm wrote:
| PS18m is a maximum, not a minimum, but your point stands.
| kragen wrote:
| That's terrible. Hopefully the users can make backups (of at
| least what has already been posted, if not of their ongoing
| social connections) before the shutdown. It's good that you can
| provide such notice. Are you providing tarballs?
| setgree wrote:
| An insightful comment on this from an American context, but about
| basically the same problem [0]
|
| > Read the regs and you can absolutely see how complying with
| them to allow for banana peeling could become prohibitively
| costly. But the debate of whether they are pro-fruit or anti-
| fruit misses the point. If daycares end up serving bags of chips
| instead of bananas, that's the impact they've had. Maybe you
| could blame all sorts of folks for misinterpreting the regs, or
| applying them too strictly, or maybe you couldn't. It doesn't
| matter. This happens all the time in government, where policy
| makers and policy enforcers insist that the negative effects of
| the words they write don't matter because that's not how they
| intended them.
|
| > I'm sorry, but they do matter. In fact, the impact - separate
| from the intent - is all that really matters.
|
| [0] https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/stop-telling-constituents-
| the...
| missinglugnut wrote:
| That's an excellent article. Another quote I found especially
| relevant:
|
| >Every step that law takes down the enormous hierarchy of
| bureaucracy, the incentives for the public servants who
| operationalize it is to take a more literal, less flexible
| interpretation. By the time the daycare worker interacts with
| it, the effect of the law is often at odds with lawmakers'
| intent.
|
| Put another way, everyone in the chain is incentivized to be
| very risk averse when faced with a vague regulation, and this
| risk aversion can compound to reach absurd places.
| greener_grass wrote:
| Are you Velocio? Thanks for all the hard work!
|
| Sad that lufguss will probably become just another channel on one
| of the big platforms. RIP.
| buro9 wrote:
| yup, and thank you for the kind words
| cakealert wrote:
| This seems like a classic "Don't interrupt your adversary when
| they are making a mistake" situation.
|
| The EU and UK have been making these anti-tech, anti-freedom
| moves for years. Nothing can be better if you are from the US.
| Just hoover up talent from their continent.
| webspinner wrote:
| This is what bad legislation does, punish small communities!
| okasaki wrote:
| Why not hand it over to someone else who would take the risk?
|
| Seems a bit megalomaniacal.
|
| " _I 'm_ not interested in doing this any more. Therefore I'll
| shut it down for everyone"
| wccrawford wrote:
| Because then they're responsible, at least socially, for the
| things the new admin does.
|
| This way, people have been given _plenty_ of advanced notice
| and can start their own forums somewhere instead. I 'm sure
| each of the 300 subforums already has some people running them,
| and they could do the above if they actually cared.
|
| I find it hard to believe someone will take over 300 forums out
| of the goodness of their hearts and not start making it worse
| eventually, if not immediately.
| okasaki wrote:
| Specious reasoning.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Does everyone else remember when GDPR came out and everyone
| running a website was extradited to Europe and fined a billion
| pounds.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Please consider working with Archive Team and/or the Internet
| Archive to preserve the content of the site.
| schappim wrote:
| We have something similar in Australia with the Online Safety Act
| 2021. I think this highlights a critical misunderstanding at the
| heart of the legislation: it imagines the internet as a handful
| of giant platforms rather than a rich tapestry of independent,
| community-driven spaces. The Online Safety Act's broad, vague
| requirements and potential penalties are trivial hurdles for
| billion-dollar companies with in-house legal teams, compliance
| departments, and automatic moderation tooling. But for a single
| individual running a forum as a labour of love--or a small
| collective operating on volunteer time--this creates a legal
| minefield where any disgruntled user can threaten real financial
| and personal harm.
|
| In practice, this means the local cycling forum that fostered
| trust, friendship, and even mental health support is at risk of
| vanishing, while the megacorps sail on without a scratch.
| Ironically, a measure allegedly designed to rein in "Big Tech"
| ends up discouraging small, independent communities and pushing
| users toward the same large platforms the legislation was
| supposedly targeting.
|
| It's discouraging to watch governments double down on complex,
| top-down solutions that ignore the cultural and social value of
| these smaller spaces. We need policy that recognises genuine
| community-led forums as a public good, encourages sustainable
| moderation practices, and holds bad actors accountable without
| strangling the grassroots projects that make the internet more
| human. Instead, this act risks hollowing out our online
| diversity, leaving behind a more homogenised, corporate-dominated
| landscape.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _I run just over 300 forums, for a monthly audience of 275k
| active users_
|
| I can't imagine one person running over 300 forums with 275,000
| active users. That gives you an average of eight minutes a week
| to tend to the needs of each one.
|
| I used to run a single forum with 50,000 active users, and even
| putting 20 hours a week into it, I still didn't give it
| everything it needed.
|
| I know someone currently running a forum with about 20,000 active
| users and it's a full-time job for him.
|
| I don't understand how it's possible for one person to run 300
| forums well.
| squigz wrote:
| With 1 or 2 competent mods, a forum can be very low-
| maintenance.
| reaperducer wrote:
| When I was running the 50,000 user forum, I had five. Mods
| are great, but I still can't grok 300+ forums all being done
| well. He'd need hundreds of mods.
| squigz wrote:
| I seriously doubt a large portion of those 300+ forums have
| tens of thousands of users.
| beacon294 wrote:
| It's much more responsible to put this whole thing into some
| nonprofit trust format and hand it over to someone with the time
| and energy to handle it. This also would not exclude you from
| volunteering.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| The laughable thing is believing that Ofcom has any budget to
| prosecute anyone, let alone a small website.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >Any monies donated in excess of what is needed to provide the
| service through to 16th March 2025 will be spent personally on
| unnecessary bike gear or astrophotography equipment, but more
| likely on my transition costs as being transfemme I can tell you
| there is zero NHS support and I'm busy doing everything DIY
| (reminder to myself, need to go buy some blood tests so I can
| guess my next dosage change)... Not that I imagine there will be
| an excess, but hey, I must be clear about what would happen if
| there were an excess.
|
| I would argue the honorable thing to do in the event excess
| monies remain would be to donate it to a charity. Using it for
| personal ends, whatever the details, is wrong because that's not
| what the donations were for.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| Have you considered handing off the forums to someone based
| outside of the UK? I'm sure you might be able to find a
| reasonable steward and divest without leaving your users
| stranded. You've worked very hard and have something to be proud
| of, I would hate to see it go.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-16 23:00 UTC)