[HN Gopher] Tough news for our UK users
___________________________________________________________________
Tough news for our UK users
Author : airhangerf15
Score : 165 points
Date : 2025-07-20 20:43 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.janitorai.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.janitorai.com)
| smallpipe wrote:
| A shame the ruling party is indistinguishible from the Tory they
| were voted in to replace.
| daedrdev wrote:
| I think they probably should not have implied its accessible via
| VPN, the UK might still go after their asses for having UK users
| even with the IP block
| IlikeKitties wrote:
| How can they even enforce this? What happens if you run a
| plattform in let's say Germany and just tell them to fuck off, UK
| Law is of no interest to me.
| daveoc64 wrote:
| Payments to your service from users in the UK could be blocked.
|
| It's also possible for the owners or employees of the company
| to be held liable if they ever visit the UK.
| aosaigh wrote:
| I don't agree with the legislation, but I assume the same way
| they can go after you for any crime they perceive as being
| committed in the UK: extradition. It's obviously incredibly
| unlikely.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Most sane countries will only extradite if users have broken
| a law which reciprocally exists in the country they actually
| live.
| louthy wrote:
| Or you travel to a 3rd country that has the same law and an
| extradition treaty with the UK.
|
| Or, you travel to the UK! It's a pretty popular destination
| and Heathrow is a major European hub. It would be easy to
| get caught out.
|
| The law may well be onerous and misguided. But looking at
| that site, it seems they reeeeally should do their due
| diligence. Not just to avoid the long arm of UK justice,
| but other territories too. It looks extremely dubious.
|
| Their mitigation doesn't make sense either. If they don't
| shutdown UK accounts and those accounts use UK credit cards
| which continue to use the service via a VPN. It could be
| reasonably argued that they know they're providing a
| service to a UK resident. So, they really need to do their
| homework.
|
| What they're actually complaining about is the cost of
| doing business. It sounds pretty amateurish.
| landl0rd wrote:
| Something generally has to be a criminal offense in both
| nations for one to extradite to the other.
| zb3 wrote:
| Funny how it doesn't work this way if the country is US..
| jgilias wrote:
| UK law may be of no interest to you. But they can still press
| criminal charges, and Germany _will_ extradite you.
| IlikeKitties wrote:
| I'm a German National, so no, they won't extradite me.
| nocoiner wrote:
| I'm sure they won't, but it might be annoying to never be
| able to take a flight that connects in London for the rest
| of your life.
|
| I have no idea if this is a likely or even possible
| consequence, but that's one way lots of people have gotten
| ensnared by the long arm of the law, even when jurisdiction
| is otherwise normally lacking.
| closewith wrote:
| Not at all. Many people avoid Heathrow because it's a
| terrible airport and many more because they don't want to
| submit themselves to the UK justice system, which is as
| classist and corrupt as they come.
| kaashif wrote:
| To be clear - German nationals can be extradited to other
| EU countries under German law, but not third countries like
| the UK.
|
| If the UK had remained in the EU, then extradition might be
| possible (depending on whether courts approve it) but right
| now it's pretty unambiguously impossible.
| louthy wrote:
| IANAL but there appears to be an agreement between the UK
| and Germany. Not sure if it's just criminal cooperation,
| or whether extradition is part of that:
|
| https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-
| mut...
| FinnKuhn wrote:
| Not a lawyer, but that seems to be from the 60s and a
| quick Google search showed some court decisions that
| extraditions to the UK are not possible as staying silent
| can harm your defense, which contradicts German basic law
| where it states: "No German may be extradited to a
| foreign country. The law may provide otherwise for
| extraditions to a member state of the European Union or
| to an international court, provided that the rule of law
| is observed."
|
| Apparently Germany is also (at least as of 2023) not
| extraditing non-citizens to the UK due to the condition
| of British jails as well so:
| https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/05/germany-
| refu...
| prmoustache wrote:
| Only if you are not a German national. Germany notified UK
| after a certain period after Brexit that they will not
| extradite their own citizen, they will only do that to other
| EU countries.
|
| Having said that, it can limit a lot ones travel
| possibilities.
| amelius wrote:
| Then you might get blocked, I suppose.
|
| For an extreme case, ask Julian Assange what might happen if a
| country doesn't like what you put on the internet.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Generally, if they identify you and you decide to visit London
| as a tourist for a week you could be arrested at the airport.
| If they wanted to enforce this. So obviously, it's of interest
| if you ever want to take a trip to the UK.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > How can they even enforce this? What happens if you run a
| plattform in let's say Germany and just tell them to fuck off,
| UK Law is of no interest to me.
|
| If you are found criminally guilty in UK, sure you can avoid
| visiting UK, and of course, potentials business partners in
| Germany will see you guilty record in UK as a liability. It
| might impact your capacity to travel in other countries as
| well, if you have any sort of criminal record anywhere else,
| like Canada, Australia, New Zealand or US...
|
| There are also extradition treaties between UK and Europe...
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| I decided I will block signups to my web platform for UK users as
| well. Just because I don't understand any of the requirements.
| dumbfounder wrote:
| I hope you inform the user and show them how to easily complain
| to their representatives.
| IlikeKitties wrote:
| Nah, just send them code 451 and ignore them. UK is still
| democracy adjacent, uk citicens voted for this nonesense, let
| them deal with the consequences.
| prmoustache wrote:
| They voted for representatives, not for a particular law
| and may have not understood the details of this law when it
| was passed.
| HPsquared wrote:
| In 2024, only about 15% of MPs were elected by a local
| majority. This is a historic low, I think.
|
| There was a lot of "vote splitting" and spoiler effect
| going on due to FPTP.
|
| Labour have a very weak mandate.
| aosaigh wrote:
| Citizens don't vote on legislation in the UK.
| jonplackett wrote:
| We did not
| UrineSqueegee wrote:
| i opened the ofcom link and it has this really easy to follow
| guide with 17 illegal contents the users my encounter on your
| website like terrorism/pdf content etc like extremely bad stuff
| and all you have to do is asses how likely the user is to run
| into one of these on your site if its over 0% how do you plan
| on mitigating that.
|
| thats literally all there is to it.
| landl0rd wrote:
| I have also blocked yookayers from my site because I would
| rather spend my time on GTM for my more valuable markets or
| have free time than waste it on the tiny chunk of my users
| who are yookay based.
|
| Also I don't know what sort of weight "guidance" from a reg
| agency vs statute carries there, how much of a defense it is,
| etc.
| fmajid wrote:
| Keep in mind UK terrorism legislation has been abused and is
| continuing to be, from prosecuting the failed Icesave bank to
| proscribing the non-violent Palestine Action activist group.
| If the Terrorism Act 2000 had been in effect in the 1980s,
| you could have risked 14 years in prison for advocating for
| the ANC against Apartheid (Thatcher's government's official
| policy was that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist who had been
| convicted in a fair trial).
|
| The UK doesn't have a First Amendment or a Bill of Rights
| other than the European Convention on Human Rights, that
| leading parties campaign of abolishing (if a bill of rights
| can be abolished by the legislature, it's not worth the paper
| it's printed on). Heck it doesn't even have a proper written
| constitution, it doesn't have separation of powers or an
| independent judiciary (the previous Parliament considered
| passing a law saying "Rwanda is a safe country to deport
| inconvenient asylum seekers to" in response to a court ruling
| (correctly) saying it manifestly isn't.
|
| The UK and Australia are in a race to the bottom to see which
| one is going to be the worst enemy of the Internet. The only
| check against these authoritarian powers is popular juries,
| and they are trying to get rid of these as well.
| flumpcakes wrote:
| > the non-violent Palestine Action activist group
|
| https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-06-23/debates/25
| 0...
| _dain_ wrote:
| "extremely bad stuff"
|
| people have literally been jailed for "hate speech" here
| because they clicked like on a tweet. labour is currently
| debating an official definition of "islamophobia" which would
| criminalize stating historical facts like "islam was spread
| by the sword" and "the grooming gangs are mostly pakistani".
| the govt put out a superinjunction forbidding anyone
| (including MPs) from mentioning they spent PS7B bringing over
| afghans allegedly at risk from the taliban, and also
| criminalizing mention of the gag order itself, and so on
| recursively. nobody (other than judges and senior ministers)
| knows how many other such superinjunctions there are.
|
| all this and more is covered by those 17 categories.
|
| on top of this, britain claims global jurisdiction here.
| think a minute how absurd that is -- any website anywhere
| that any briton might access is in scope, according to ofcom.
| and they claim the power to prosecute foreigners for these
| "crimes" ...
| pseudo0 wrote:
| Yeah just interpret 3000+ pages of policy documents and if
| you screw it up, OFCOM can fine you 18 million pounds and
| hold you criminally liable. Their "simple guide" is 70 pages
| long and has numerous links to additional policy documents
| that have more details on how to interpret the law. Any sane
| company is going to hire UK legal counsel to deal with this,
| which is easily going to cost five or six figures. And that
| doesn't include the cost of adding additional technical
| mitigations to justify a lower risk assessment. So the
| rational move for any company that has minimal UK revenue is
| to just IP ban the country, like Iran or North Korea.
| zb3 wrote:
| The law could be renamed to "Use VPN Act", this is the actual
| consequence..
| vidarh wrote:
| Mullvad has been running ads on London buses recently...
| tomschwiha wrote:
| I get both sides. Kids need some sort of protection online. But
| the UK law is maybe too harsh for small companies. Also hinting
| at VPN use to bypass the law isn't smart legally.
| computegabe wrote:
| Protection for the kids should fall on the parents or schools,
| not the companies. It's not the companies fault if the kid is
| given full access to the internet, especially at a young age.
| It's bad parenting. If it's such an important issue, make the
| parents liable in some way.
| ocharles wrote:
| This keeps getting parroted but it's flawed/overly
| idealistic/frankly naive. An awful of children are,
| unfortunately, poorly parented. This is not a new phenomenon,
| nor something we seem to be improving. OTOH, exposure to
| extreme material for young children is increasing, and has
| consequences beyond that child. Exposure to extreme
| pornography leads to a warped view of sex which affects
| everyone this child might have sexual encounters with.
| Exposure to extreme violent material leads to the murder of
| other innocent children.
|
| I don't know where I stand on this legislation - my gut is
| that it's too heavy handed and will miss the mark. But I
| think we need to stop saying this falls solely on parents.
| The internet is far too big, and parenting is far too varied
| for this to work. I wish it would, but it won't. There simply
| aren't enough parents that care enough.
| computegabe wrote:
| Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think it's a
| terrible thing, but in this case, I think doing nothing is
| better than doing something. The unintended consequences
| far outweighs the benefits. The kids that want to find
| extreme stuff will find it anyway, regardless of
| regulation.
| xg15 wrote:
| "But the unintended consequences" has been the standard
| response of tech startups to any kind of regulation,
| since they were started being regulated. At some point,
| it stops being believable.
| computegabe wrote:
| Yes, and my response is compare the tech companies and
| sizes between the US, Europe, and else where. Over
| regulation. The same thing is happening with AI in
| Europe. I am taking an economic stance here.
| xg15 wrote:
| This is the same tired excuse that is given every time.
| Requiring parents to police their kids' Internet usage 24/7
| is about as practical or desirable as controlling their
| location 24/7. At the latest if those kids have their own
| phones - or simply visit friends, it's not possible anymore.
| computegabe wrote:
| Oh, so you want the government to police people's kids'
| internet usage 24/7, inadvertently screwing everyone else
| over in the process? I'm sure this will end well for the
| UK, especially the economy.
| xg15 wrote:
| So, if not the government and not the parents, then who
| should do it?
| computegabe wrote:
| No one. Nothing should be done. If parents aren't going
| to do anything, what's stopping the kid from getting the
| parents ID when they're not looking? Or better yet, the
| same parent which verifies the site for the kid just to
| get them to shut up? It's the same parental group.
| xg15 wrote:
| See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44629799
| lijok wrote:
| You're optimizing for "fairness". The UK government, however
| misguided, is optimizing for good outcomes for the next
| generation. The thing that solves this may well be parents
| taking accountability, but, putting these expectations on
| online platforms in place doesn't hurt and can only help.
| lisper wrote:
| > Kids need some sort of protection online.
|
| Yeah. It's called "parenting".
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| > Kids need some sort of protection online.
|
| Beyond the obvious response about parenting: do they?
|
| There was absolutely no restriction on the web when millenials
| were growing up, and we didn't become a generation of
| degenerates.
|
| I'd like to see actual proof that there is a need for mass
| online protection for children.
| xg15 wrote:
| I mean, just look at the company that made the announcement
| in the OP.
|
| Their business is creating virtual AI friends, often with
| sexually suggestive themes.
|
| You can browse through the characters here:
| https://janitorai.com/
|
| Would you want to let a lonely kid who might already have
| self confidence issues and problems making real-life friends
| loose on that site?
| nocoiner wrote:
| "if people find other methods to access the site, that is
| entirely on them - there are no legal consequences for users."
|
| For a site operator who seems really concerned about potential
| liability under this law, I sure wouldn't have put this in
| writing. Feels like it really undermines the rest of the post and
| the compliance measures being taken.
| PhoenixReborn wrote:
| It's basically impossible to prevent people from using VPNs
| without some serious governmental control over every telco -
| which of course may be the case in the UK, but I don't think a
| site operator can be held liable for that in any sane way.
| bink wrote:
| It's one thing to not try to prevent people from
| circumventing the law, it's quite another to encourage them
| to do so.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| As the website says, it's not illegal for users in the UK
| to circumvent the restrictions using a VPN, so they're not
| recommending anything illegal.
| closewith wrote:
| This is the kind of comment you get from someone who's
| never interacted with a Western legal system. Any kind of
| winking reference is immediately seen through.
| harvey9 wrote:
| China's great firewall is reported to take resources the UK
| just couldn't muster. The UK is still at the level of storing
| highly classified information in Excel and sending it by
| email.
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| What's wrong with email? I keep seeing "email is not secure
| means of communication" but doesn't email use TLS?
| foldr wrote:
| > which of course may be the case in the UK
|
| People aren't prevented from using VPNs in the UK, in case
| anyone is unclear on this.
| laincide wrote:
| Thats ok, i probably wouldnt use a site that uses ghbili style ai
| generated thumbnails anyway
| Trowter wrote:
| Yeah maybe mark this as NSFW? I didn't realise this was a blog
| for a weird AI festish website... Thanks virigns
| muglug wrote:
| Um this website offers LLM-powered chat bots that can simulate
| pretty much any situation the user wants, and most of the content
| appears to be sexual in nature.
|
| I'm no prude, but I think this is a not-great thing to expose
| kids to, and the UK government is maybe not-terrible to want some
| sort of way to gate kids' access.
| tomschwiha wrote:
| I think the point of the blog is still valid as the law applies
| to any content publisher/social media platform of any size.
| Even Hackernews could be a target if I understood correctly.
| r33b33 wrote:
| Quickly spin up a VPN (with LLM help) and georedirect UK users to
| said VPN page.
|
| Problem solved.
| prmoustache wrote:
| I am pretty sure helping your users circumventing the blockage
| would make you liable the same way.
| r33b33 wrote:
| So? If the law is stupid, they should get what's coming to
| them.
| dsign wrote:
| There's a explainer of the act here:
|
| https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act... .
|
| From what I'm reading, Amazon will have to implement age-checks
| over 8/10 of its book inventory, with the other 2/10 opening the
| company for liability about the very broad definition of "Age-
| appropriate experiences for children online." And yes, janitorai
| is correct that the act applies to them and the content they
| create, and a blanket ban to UK users seems the most appropriate
| course of action.
|
| For what is worth, the act does not seem to apply to first-party
| websites, as long as visitors of that website are not allowed to
| interact with each other. So, say, a blog without a comment feed
| should be okay.
| pacifika wrote:
| That's not what Ofcom clarified previously: see the end of
| https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/06/uk_online_safety_act_...
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| The way these laws and regs don't even consider the provider size
| is aggravating. Doubly so because they always use "big bad
| provider" and think of the kids as populist support gaining
| strategies, but in the end the same big providers benefit. They
| have the billions to spend on everything from lawyers to fiscal
| optimisation, and they rake in the entire market since they're
| the only ones left to serve that market.
|
| That's happening with the AI act here as well. Almost no-one
| wants to even touch the EU shitshow and they're still going
| forward with it. Even Mistral was trying to petition them, but
| the latest news seem like it had no effect. Fuck us I guess,
| right? Both consumers and SMBs will lose if this passes as is.
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| They did consider the provider size, it is probably the main
| element of this law: the problem is that the consideration was
| to assume that you are always dealing with mega-large companies
| with teams of lawyers...because these companies have been
| lobbying regulators and civil servants (not Parliament so much,
| they don't matter anymore) for years. This is extremely common
| in the UK (very low corruption by historical methods but when
| decisions are actually made, there is corruption almost
| everywhere). The provider size was an active choice.
|
| It isn't populist either, no-one supports this. The UK has
| media campaigns run by newspapers, no-one reads the papers but
| politicians so these campaigns start to influence politicians.
| Always the same: spontaneous media campaign across multiple
| newspapers (low impact on other kinds of media), child as a
| figurehead, and the law always has significant implications
| that are nothing to do with the publicly stated aim.
|
| Democracy has very little to do with it. Elections happen in
| the UK but policies don't change, it is obvious why.
| edelsohn wrote:
| Regulatory capture. The impact on small providers was intended.
| librasteve wrote:
| lobby fodder
| kylestanfield wrote:
| "this is not just content moderation - it is a complete
| regulatory framework that assumes every platform is a tech
| giant."
| UrineSqueegee wrote:
| bro is making 0 sense and I think he fucked something up and he
| is trying to pin it on the legislation than himself.
|
| it's an extremely trivial thing to do and the ofcom guidance is
| very easy to follow.
| rimbo789 wrote:
| It's insane that "just follow the rules" gets downvoted
| puppycodes wrote:
| the UK has been a swirling toilet bowl for free speech for
| years... unfortunately it seems to have accelerated.
|
| I really dont understand why parents don't bare the
| responsibility of their kids internet access as opposed to the
| expectation the internet raises their kids...
| aosaigh wrote:
| Do you have kids? I don't, so I don't have any idea how
| realistic this is. How do you ensure your kids aren't skirting
| any blocks you put in place, looking things up with their
| friends, getting access to a VPN, etc.?
|
| I also don't think this act is the way to address these issues,
| but I don't think it's as easy as just putting everything at
| the feet of the parents as I imagine it almost impossible to
| police at home, not to mention at school.
|
| When I think of older technologies like television, we have
| rules and regulations about what can be shown when.
|
| Again, this isn't to say this approach is right, but wanting to
| regulate isn't an attack on free speech. It seems there is
| regularly a tension on HN between free speech absolutists,
| usually from the US and those more happy to accept regulation,
| usually from the EU
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| > How do you ensure your kids aren't skirting any blocks you
| put in place, looking things up with their friends, getting
| access to a VPN, etc.?
|
| I don't, because I don't need to.
|
| I had unrestricted access to internet when I was my kids age
| and I turned out just fine, just like the extreme majority of
| my generation.
|
| I know that serious discussions about important topics are
| enough to make sure that even if my kids do access content
| that's not meant for children, they're not negatively
| affected by them, just like I wasn't.
| aosaigh wrote:
| The world is a very very different place technologically
| then when you grew up.
|
| Again I don't have kids, so I'm not in a position to judge,
| but I can only imagine the pressures on children are
| completely different nowadays. For example, we didn't have
| computers in our pocket 24/7 with all of our peers on the
| other end influencing us indifferent ways.
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| So you agree the problem isn't the technology but other
| children...what is the solution then? Ban other children?
| aosaigh wrote:
| No I don't agree with that. Technologies can exacerbate
| problems.
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| Teachers are having to toilet train children as some come to
| school unable to use a toilet, more children are non-verbal,
| more children are unable to sit through lessons, the number of
| children with special needs has skyrocketed, in one council
| area there was a single taxi firm with a PS20m contract to take
| children to school, not only are there free school meals but
| some schools are now running breakfast and dinner services
| because parents can't feed children...no, parents won't take
| responsibility.
| SturgeonsLaw wrote:
| And all this is because websites weren't doing age
| verification? Wow, I'm glad we could solve those problems
| once and for all with this excellent legislation that doesn't
| have any side effects whatsoever!
| closewith wrote:
| Parents are responsible for keeping their children safe online,
| as they are in person.
|
| Platforms are also responsible for not allowing their services
| to be used to abuse children, which is also true offline.
| jadamson wrote:
| I'm not sure why people who don't go outside are so eager to
| talk about what happens offline.
|
| No, McDonald's is not responsible if you send your kid to the
| bathroom unattended and there's a paedo lurking inside.
|
| As a wise man once said:
|
| > The British legal system is and always has been a litany of
| injustices dressed up in formal attire. To be avoided at all
| costs.
| puppycodes wrote:
| There are multiple issues here that have nuance to them.
|
| ID checks at porn sites are a laughably terrible idea for
| more reasons than I could possibly list on a hacker news
| forum.
|
| Having been a former child with raging hormones and a
| computer I can tell you right now an ID check on the five
| biggest porn sites would not have stopped me... lol.
|
| We all want to protect kids from predators, but thats not
| what this law does. This is just thinly veiled morality
| policing.
| rafram wrote:
| > i know that is terrible timing and im genuinely sorry about
| that.
|
| This Twitter-style faux-casual way of writing is so common among
| AI people right now (see Sam Altman) and it's extremely grating.
| I don't know anything about this project, but if they really
| cared about their users, I would hope that they'd use capital
| letters and punctuation when addressing them in an official
| announcement.
| landl0rd wrote:
| "hello fellow humans im friendly and approachable lol"
|
| Also:
|
| > "and honestly? i..."
|
| > "this is not just content moderation - it is a..."
|
| These are two huge shibboleths of gpt-ese. He had to
| specifically tell the bot to write in that style.
| blitzar wrote:
| My personal prompt is 'make me sound like an insufferable
| twat'. Hate on LLMs all you want but 60% of the time, it
| works every time.
| rcruzeiro wrote:
| Perhaps a bit of a personal conspiracy theory: I do wonder if
| this was "written" this way because having ChatGPT write it
| like this is the only somewhat guaranteed way to have it
| avoid putting em dashes everywhere.
| wiredone wrote:
| The great thing about language is that it changes over time.
|
| eg the past decade has seen us remove "that" as a qualifier,
| and the word literally has become interchangeable with
| figuratively.
|
| its worth considering whether you're just losing touch...
| rafram wrote:
| > eg the past decade has seen us remove "that" as a
| qualifier, and the word literally has become interchangeable
| with figuratively
|
| The latter didn't happen just in the last decade, and the
| former hasn't happened at all.
|
| But no, I can pretty confidently say that the English
| language still has capitalization and punctuation in it, it's
| mostly just on Twitter and in AI-related blog posts where
| people write like this.
| fourside wrote:
| It reminds me of those affectations some kids back in high
| school picked up on purpose just to stand out. I knew a guy who
| went through a phase where he'd always talk about penguins and
| owned a bunch of penguin related paraphernalia because that was
| "his thing".
|
| That kind of posturing is forgivable when you're a teen. When
| you do it as the CEO of one of the most influential companies
| today, it's grating. When you do it because you're another CEO
| in a similar market and you're trying to signal that you're
| part of the "in" crowd, it's frankly embarrassing.
| raincole wrote:
| Really lol. It's a situation where people are censored and
| potentially prosecuted by government and your first reaction is
| nitpicking grammar?
| phtrivier wrote:
| My cursory understanding of the ruling is that it applies if you
| have several million users in the UK... [1]
|
| Is that the case here (and it just happens that I have no clue
| what this particular site is about) ?
|
| Or am I grossly misunderstanding the act (very likely I guess
| since IANAL) ?
|
| [1] https://www.onlinesafetyact.net/analysis/categorisation-
| of-s...
|
| -------------------------------------------
|
| Ofcom's advice to the Secretary of State
|
| Ofcom submitted their advice - and the unerpinning research that
| had informed it - to the Secretary of State on 29 February 2024
| and published it on 25 March. In summary, its advice is as
| follows: Category 1
|
| Condition 1: Use a content recommender system;
| and Have more than 34m UK users on the U2U part of the
| service
|
| Condition 2: Allow users to forward or reshare
| UGC; and Use a content recommender system; and
| Have more than 7m UK users on the U2U part of the service
|
| Ofcom estimates that there are 9 services captured by condition 1
| and 12-16 likely to be captured by condition 2. There is one
| small reference in the annex that the 7m+ monthly users threshold
| corresponds to the DSA (A6.15) Category 2a (search)
| Not a vertical search service; and Have more then 7m UK
| users
|
| Ofcom estimates that there are just 2 search services that
| currently sit (a long way) above this threshold but that it is
| justified to put it at this level to catch emerging services.
| Category 2b (children) Allow users to send
| direct messages; and Have more than 3m UK users on the
| U2U part of the service
|
| Ofcom estimates that there are "approximately 25-40 services"
| that may meet this threshold.
|
| -------------------------------------------
| boznz wrote:
| A 250+ page law will have so many edge cases I doubt you would
| want to test it especially in a country with a government that
| has recently cracked down and arrested people for online
| "crimes". Sad the UK government has descended to this level of
| stupidity.
| rafram wrote:
| Ofcom's "Does the Online Safety Act apply to your service?"
| questionnaire [1] doesn't use those thresholds, and it makes it
| sound like the law would apply to any site with paying
| customers in the UK.
|
| [1]: https://ofcomlive.my.salesforce-
| sites.com/formentry/Regulati...
| landl0rd wrote:
| I just basically struggle with the concept of "x people form
| our country chose to talk to your web server (hosted elsewhere,
| responds to anybody) so we now claim jurisdiction (with
| possible criminal penalties) over that server (hosted
| elsewhere) and you (who lives elsewhere)."
| semiquaver wrote:
| > the ruling
|
| what ruling are you referring to? This is about the Online
| Safety Act, an act of parliament.
| Hizonner wrote:
| Those are thresholds for _extra_ requirements.
|
| https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/cons...
|
| _Everybody_ (who 's not specifically exempted by Schedule 1,
| which has nothing to do with what you linked to) gets a "duty
| of care". _Everybody_ has to do a crapton of specific stupid
| (and expensive) administrative stuff. Oh, and by the way you 'd
| better pay a lawyer to make sure that any Schedule 1 (or other)
| exemption you're relying on actually applies to you. Which they
| may not even be able to say because of general vagueness and
| corner cases that the drafters didn't think of.
|
| Also, it's not a "ruling". It's a law with some implementing
| regulations.
| speerer wrote:
| Your source is a 2024 piece about recommendations that had been
| made, not about how the law turned out.
| x0x0 wrote:
| That's an incorrect understanding. It creates a range of
| requirements for essentially any service with users in the UK
| if there is UGC or messaging.
|
| Then there are additional requirements applied to 3 classes of
| services: Category 1, 2A, 2B. The latter have the thresholds as
| discussed above.
|
| But, as usual, poorly written. eg a "Content Recommendation
| System" -- if you choose, via any method, to show content to
| users, you have built a recommendation system. See eg
| wikimedia's concern that showing a picture of the day on a
| homepage is a bonafide content recommendation system.
|
| The definition
|
| > (2)In paragraph (1), a "content recommender system" means a
| system, used by the provider of a regulated user-to-user
| service in respect of the user-to-user part of that service,
| that uses algorithms which by means of machine learning or
| other techniques determines, or otherwise affects, the way in
| which regulated user-generated content of a user, whether alone
| or with other content, may be encountered by other users of the
| service.
|
| https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/226/regulation/3/ma...
|
| If you in any way display UGC, it's essentially impossible not
| to do that. Because you pick which UGC to display somehow.
| Havoc wrote:
| The act does seem poorly thought out practically & I really
| dislike the UK's overall mindset to online safety. The laws
| consistently feel like they were written by someone that prints
| out emails to read...
|
| That said the thinking that smaller platform should equal
| exemptions seems a touch flawed too given topic. If you're
| setting out to protect a child from content that say is promoting
| suicide the size of the platform isn't a relevant metric. If
| anything the smaller less visible corners (like the various chan
| sites) of the internet may even be higher risk
| crote wrote:
| Smaller entities are rarely looking for a _full_ exception,
| they just want the regulations to be implementable without
| being a megacorp.
|
| Take something like a plastic packaging tax, for example. A
| company like Amazon won't have _too_ much trouble setting up a
| team to take care of this, and they can be taxed by the gram
| and by the material. But expecting the same from a mom-and-pop
| store is unreasonable - the fee isn 't the problem, but the
| administrative overhead can be enough to kill them. Offering an
| alternative fixed-fee structure for companies below certain
| revenue thresholds would solve that problem, while still
| remaining true to the original intention.
| Havoc wrote:
| I get the impossible bind this puts small companies in &
| having people resort to IP blocking the entire country is
| clearly a sign of a broken setup
|
| But playing devils advocate a bit here if the risk profile to
| the kid is the same on big and small platforms then there
| isn't any ethical room a lighter regime. Never mind full
| exemption, any exemption. The whole line of reasoning that
| you can't afford it therefore more kids potentially getting
| hurt on your platform is more acceptable just doesn't play.
| And similarly if you do provide a lighter touch regime, then
| the big players will rightly say well if that is adequate to
| ensure safety then why exactly can't we do that too?
|
| Platform size just isn't a relevant metric on some topics -
| child safety being one of them. Ethically whether a child is
| exposed to harm on a small or big website is the same thing.
|
| Not that I think this act will do much of anything for child
| safety. Which is why I think this needs to go back to drawing
| board entirely. Cause if we're not effectively protecting
| children yet killing businesses (and freedoms) then wtf are
| we doing
| nine_k wrote:
| The question is whether the laws are efficient. Imagine that as
| a protection from the occasional meteorite, all buildings are
| mandated to upgrade their roofs to be 1 meter of solid
| concrete. We cannot allow another random space rock kill
| another innocent inhabitant.
|
| This, or course, would disproportionately burden smaller
| buildings, while some larger buildings would have little
| trouble to comply. Guess who would complain more often. But it,
| while outwardly insane, would clear small huts off the market,
| while the owners of large reinforced buildings would be able to
| reclaim the land, as if by an unintended consequence.
|
| Driving the risk tolerance of a society lower and lower
| interestingly dovetails with the ease of regulatory capture by
| large incumbent players, as if by coincidence.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Timely reminder to all UK people - your system is 100% set up to
| allow you to easily and legally change your government without
| bloodshed. This is the benefit of a constitutional monarchy.
|
| By "changing your government" I don't mean "shuffle people in and
| out of parliament" or even "elect your 6th Prime Minister in 10
| years".
|
| I mean change your government.
| flumpcakes wrote:
| What do you mean then?
| hdb385 wrote:
| You get the government you deserve
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| There was an election, both parties said this Act was going to
| happen.
|
| It depends what you mean by government but elected officials in
| the UK are almost completely irrelevant in this (and in most
| other things, their job is to get in front of a TV camera say
| how appalled they are that it has happened, no-one could have
| foreseen this, don't look back in anger, and that they are
| going to select from the same policy options that the Civil
| Service presented the last government with...which results in
| the same conclusion: more civil servants, more regulation, more
| corruption).
|
| Ofcom has been making a massive power grab, this bill and other
| recent regulations are granting them massive new powers, and
| the UK has a system in which ministers have no functional
| capacity to block this.
| foldr wrote:
| I'm afraid this is nonsense. Elected officials aren't
| irrelevant. The majority of them support this legislation and
| that is why it got enough votes to become law. You don't have
| to like it (I'm not a huge fan either), but it's a perfectly
| straightforward case of a popular policy becoming law via the
| democratic process. A process that's notoriously imperfect
| and not guaranteed to yield the best outcome in all cases.
|
| Don't fall into the trap of thinking that this law must have
| come about by sinister machinations just because you don't
| think it's a good law.
| zkmon wrote:
| I personally know how this works in Europe & UK. Not only
| government, this applies to big companies such as large banks as
| well. They recruit two kinds of staff. One that works to progress
| some work and one who puts an many hurdles as possible and call
| it risk management, compliance, security, regulatory etc (RCSR).
| They hire approximately 3 times more people into these RCSR
| positions compared to the technical and real work related
| positions. These RCSR guys dump thousands of pages of guidelines,
| making it impossible for any meaningful work to progress. My
| technical team has been running around for 4 months for approvals
| for testing an upgrade of a database.
|
| Top management can never go against the RCSR guys, who are like
| priests of the church in medieval ages. And the RCSR guys have no
| goals linked to the progress of the real work. The don't like any
| thing that moves. It's a risk.
|
| Management thinks that RCSR helps with controls around the work.
| But what happens is, you put more people in building controls,
| they deliver fort walls around your garbage bins.
| landl0rd wrote:
| America has a similar (if less severe) version of this problem
| where nobody can contradict any compliance-adjacent function.
| Because if you get sued, someone will ask you "why did you
| ignore the guidance of your compliance team??" and might even
| try to use that to justify piercing the corporate veil. Of
| course compliance types have no incentive to let business
| happen just like business types have a limited incentive to
| operate in a compliant fashion, but lawsuits favor compliance
| always taking precedent with a hyper-cautious approach.
| runlevel1 wrote:
| In theory, when there's viable competition, a competitor will
| take advantage of their competitor's overly-cautious
| interpretation.*
|
| But if the regulation is indeed oppressive or byzantine,
| everybody hurts and only the biggest survive.
|
| *Social contagion effects on risk perception can be a
| confounding factor here, though.
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| Once again, it seems like the regulations were likely written by
| the very people being regulated perfectly tailored to kill off
| any potential competition. An absolute classic.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Yeah I'm probably gonna have to block UK visitors from Marginalia
| Search as well. Just no way a single developer can comply with
| that stuff :-/
| shmerl wrote:
| I've heard it caused all UK operated small forums to shut down.
| Basically a completely dumb anti free speech "regulation".
| basisword wrote:
| They're using this as a nice marketing opportunity. "We don't
| understand the law...but here are our strong opinions on it...in
| lowercase".
|
| Just because it's become really easy to spin-up a business
| doesn't mean your business should be allowed to ignore laws -
| regardless of your opinion on them. This should apply even more
| strictly to businesses selling/providing age restricted items. A
| small tobacconist is subject to the same laws around selling
| tobacco as a large supermarket. Why should this be different
| online?
|
| I can understand basic disagreements with the general usefulness
| of the new law, but "I'm just a little guy" is a poor argument.
| Designing the law so you can only get your creepy AI porn from
| small businesses defeats the purpose of it.
| CommenterPerson wrote:
| It's about time Tech Bros had some shock therapy. I hope the UK
| law holds, is adjusted appropriately for smaller user bases, and
| reduces some of the enshittification that's become standard
| business practice on the internet.
| daft_pink wrote:
| i'm really curious if the policy of simply blocking ip addresses
| from random states or countries with laws you don't like is
| legally sufficient and making someone assert where they are
| located or from is necessary.
| arrowsmith wrote:
| Many such cases:
|
| https://www.thehamsterforum.com/threads/big-sad-forum-news-o...
|
| (Yes, this is a forum for people with pet hamsters.)
| sswaner wrote:
| Makes Fleabag's cafe more normal (Guinea Pigs are not Hamsters,
| I know).
| glaucon wrote:
| The unfortunate, but understandable, fallback suggestion from
| thehamsterforum of all moving over to Instagram shows why large
| corps _love_ laws like this. More laws just raises the barrier
| to entry until only those that have entire office blocks of
| lawyers can afford to participate.
| flumpcakes wrote:
| You can use this wizard to check if the new UK law applies to
| your service: https://ofcomlive.my.salesforce-
| sites.com/formentry/Regulati...
| jadamson wrote:
| Very first question:
|
| > Your online service has links with the UK if:
|
| > UK users are a target market for your service; or
|
| > It has a significant number of UK users
|
| What is "significant"? Is it a percentage or a raw number?
|
| I'll click "no" - maybe 5% of my users are from the UK. Great,
| wizard complete! I don't need to worry...except:
|
| > Please note that this result is indicative only
| hermitcrab wrote:
| >Do you provide a "user-to-user" service?
|
| We have a free-to-use technical forum for our (data wrangling
| software) forum, powered by Discourse. I believe that might
| allow users to directly message each other. Does that count?
| beejiu wrote:
| I have no idea what this service is, but clicking around on their
| site they mention it's 18+, that they don't allow "Child
| pornography, Sexualized depictions of minors, Heavy gore,
| Bestiality, Sexual violence".
|
| I don't agree with everything in the Online Safety Act, but if
| anything needed a risk assessment, it's surely this?
| strken wrote:
| They appear to be objecting to the scope and extreme cost of
| the risk assessment rather than its existence.
| beejiu wrote:
| They're in scope because they provide a pornographic service,
| I don't see that is arguable. If you don't have the
| competence in house to follow the guidelines and need to hire
| expensive lawyers, then yes it's an "extreme cost", but
| that's not true of all businesses.
| skissane wrote:
| From what I understand, it is just giving people access to AI
| models with minimal censorship - so illegal content [0] is
| still disallowed, but otherwise you can do what you want. And
| I'm sure a lot of that will be sexual material, but that's more
| about the nature of the market demand for uncensored AI than
| anything inherent to the offering in itself
|
| [0] "law" here isn't just laws made by governments, but also
| regulations made by e.g. Visa and Mastercard
| rimbo789 wrote:
| Good. Tech companies have acted far too long like the law is
| something like they can get to next week.
|
| This firm doesn't care a whit about the impact on users - they
| are just too cheap to follow the rules.
|
| If your business can't operate without regulation it shouldn't
| operate at all because it clearly relies too heavily on
| exploiting labour and or consumers
| 18172828286177 wrote:
| Nice bait
| rimbo789 wrote:
| It's wild that this is a forum where the take "follow the law
| even if it's annoying for your company" is considered bait
| transcriptase wrote:
| Do you have more of your writing available anywhere? I'm fine-
| tuning a model to act as someone with uncritical deference to
| authority, a paternal view of government, and no apparent
| awareness of what it takes to comply with regulation or operate
| a real business. Your material could be the perfect training
| data!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-20 23:00 UTC)