Liability is unlimited and there's no provision in law for being a single person or small group of volunteers. You'll be held to the same standards as a behemoth with full time lawyers (the stated target of the law but the least likely to be affected by it)
> the stated target of the law but the least likely to be affected by it
The least likely to be negatively affected. This will absolutely be good for them in that it just adds another item to the list of things that prevents new entrants from competing with them.
> The entire law is weaponised unintented consequences.
That would assume no malice from the goverment? Isn't the default assumption that every government want to exert control over its population at this stage, even in "democracies"? There's nothing unintended here.
> 1.17 A U2U service is exempt if the only way users can communicate on it is by posting comments or reviews on the service provider’s own content (as distinct from another user’s content).
A blog is only exempt if users communicate to the blogpost author, on the topic of the blogpost. If they comment on each other, or go off-topic, then the blog is not exempt.
That's why that exemption is basically useless. Anyone can write "hey commenter number 3 i agree commenter number 1's behaviour is shocking" and your exemption is out the window.
There has been new information since that blog post which has reaffirmed the "this is much ado about nothing" takes because Ofcom have said that they do not want to be a burden on smaller sites.
"We’ve heard concerns from some smaller services that the new rules will be too burdensome for them. Some of them believe they don’t have the resources to dedicate to assessing risk on their platforms, and to making sure they have measures in place to help them comply with the rules. As a result, some smaller services feel they might need to shut down completely.
So, we wanted to reassure those smaller services that this is unlikely to be the case."
Nothing more reassuring than a vague “we’re unlikely to go after you [if you stay on our good side.]”
It’s clear the UK wants big monopolistic tech platforms to fully dominate their local market so they only have a few throats to choke when trying to control the narrative…just like “the good old days” of centralized media.
I wouldn’t stand in the way of authoritarians if you value your freedom (or the ability to have a bank account).
The risk just isn't worth it. You write a blog post that rubs someone power-adjacent the wrong way and suddenly you're getting the classic "...nice little blog you have there...would be a shame to find something that could be interpreted as violating 1 of our 17 problem areas..."
> So, we wanted to reassure those smaller services that this is unlikely to be the case
This is the flimsiest paper thin reassurance. They've built a gun with which they can destroy the lives of individuals hosting user generated content, but they've said they're unlikely to use it.
You can try the digital toolkit and see for yourself if this is a realistic pathway for a small site (such as a blog with a comment function). Personally, I find it puzzling that Ofcom thinks what they provide is helpful to small sites. Furthermore, they make it pretty clear that they see no reason for a purely size-based exemption (“we also know that harm can exist on the smallest as well as the largest services”). They do not explore ways to reach their goals without ongoing collaboration from small site owners, either.
Unless Ofcom actively say "we will NOT enforce the Online Safety Act against small blogs", the chilling effect is still there. Ofcom need to own this. Either they enforce the bad law, or loudly reject their masters' bidding. None of this "oh i don't want to but i've had to prosecute this crippled blind orphan support forum because one of them insulted islam but ny hands are tied..."
The Canadian government did the same thing when they accidentally outlawed certain shotguns by restricting bore diameter without specifying it was for rifles.
A minister tweeted that it didn’t apply to shotguns, as if that’s legally binding as opposed to you know, the law as written.
"Unlikely," I suppose if you don't have any significant assets to be seized and don't care about ending up in prison, you may be willing to take the chance.
Nothing reassures one as much as a goverment enforcement entity essentially saying "we have full legal right to squash you like a bug but for now we won't because we just don't want to. For now".
What standards would you want individuals or small groups to be held to? In a context where it is illegal for a company to allow hate speech or CSAM on their website, should individuals be allowed to? Or do you just mean the punishment should be less?
The obvious solution is to have law enforcement enforce the law rather than private parties. If someone posts something bad to your site, the police try to find who posted it and arrest them, and the only obligation on the website is to remove the content in response to a valid court order.
Individuals and small groups not held directly liable for comments on their blog unless its proven they're responsible for inculcating that environment.
"Safe harbour" - if someone threatens legal action, the host can pass on liability to the poster of the comment. They can (temporarily) hide/remove the comment until a court decides on its legality.
This is an honest question. Why does a blog need to shutdown? If they moderate every comment before it is published on the website, what's the problem? I ask because I've got a UK-based blog too. It has got comments feature. Wouldn't enabling moderation for all comments be enough?
No, you still need to do things like write an impact assessment etc and you're still on the hook for "illegal" comments where you aren't a judge and have to arbitrarily decide what might be when you have no legal expertise whatsoever.
Doesn't this act effectively create a new form of DDoS? A bad actor can sufficiently flood a platform with enough hate content that the moderation team simply cannot keep up. Even if posts default to not show, the backlog could be enough to harm a service.
And of course, it will turn into yet another game of cat and mouse, as bad actors find new creative ways to bypass automatic censors.
Should order this list by number of affected rather than alphabetical IMO. The 275K monthly user platform is almost hidden relative to the 49 and 300 user examples.
The trouble here is that the law is so crazy that third parties allowing users in the relevant jurisdiction to access the site could result in the site still be liable, so then they would have the same reason to block your proxy service if a non-trivial number of people were using it.
To do any good you don't want to cause grief for the victims of the crazy law, you want to cause grief to its perpetrators.
being unlawful is a vital tool for people to keep tyranny in check, I would hope that most people are incredibly strong supporters of lawlessness when the laws are wrong. To give an extreme example, I imagine you supported the hiding of jewish people during nazi germanys reign, which means you support unlawful activity as long as it's against laws that are against the people.
If GP is not a UK citizen and does not live in the UK, how would that be unlawful? They're not beholden to or subject to UK law. The UK's belief that they can enforce this law on non-UK entities is ridiculous.
International law limits state jurisdiction to territorial boundaries (Art. 2(1) UN Charter). Hacker News is a US web site and Y Combinator LLC is a US company. The OSA, which is a UK law, cannot mandate physical enforcement (e.g., server seizures) on foreign soil. If they really didn't like HN, UK government could try to suppress HN access for their citicens by local means. If HN had a branch in the UK, the UK government could take action against that branch. As far as I know that's not the case.
Yes, but I don't really understand how the UK can expect to enforce this law against non-UK entities that don't have any employees or physical presence in the UK.
HN/YC could just tell them to go pound sand, no? (Assuming YC doesn't have any operations in the UK; I have no idea.)
I'm sure they can find a community elsewhere. Discord comes to mind... "Oh but it's illegal", trust me on this: Discord only cares if somebody actually reports the server and the violations are severe enough.
Readit News
Liability is unlimited and there's no provision in law for being a single person or small group of volunteers. You'll be held to the same standards as a behemoth with full time lawyers (the stated target of the law but the least likely to be affected by it)
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2024/12/storm-cl...
The entire law is weaponised unintented consequences.
The least likely to be negatively affected. This will absolutely be good for them in that it just adds another item to the list of things that prevents new entrants from competing with them.
Intended consequences no doubt.
That would assume no malice from the goverment? Isn't the default assumption that every government want to exert control over its population at this stage, even in "democracies"? There's nothing unintended here.
From Ofcom:
> this exemption would cover online services where the only content users can upload or share is comments on media articles you have published
> 1.17 A U2U service is exempt if the only way users can communicate on it is by posting comments or reviews on the service provider’s own content (as distinct from another user’s content).
A blog is only exempt if users communicate to the blogpost author, on the topic of the blogpost. If they comment on each other, or go off-topic, then the blog is not exempt.
That's why that exemption is basically useless. Anyone can write "hey commenter number 3 i agree commenter number 1's behaviour is shocking" and your exemption is out the window.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...
"We’ve heard concerns from some smaller services that the new rules will be too burdensome for them. Some of them believe they don’t have the resources to dedicate to assessing risk on their platforms, and to making sure they have measures in place to help them comply with the rules. As a result, some smaller services feel they might need to shut down completely.
So, we wanted to reassure those smaller services that this is unlikely to be the case."
It’s clear the UK wants big monopolistic tech platforms to fully dominate their local market so they only have a few throats to choke when trying to control the narrative…just like “the good old days” of centralized media.
I wouldn’t stand in the way of authoritarians if you value your freedom (or the ability to have a bank account).
The risk just isn't worth it. You write a blog post that rubs someone power-adjacent the wrong way and suddenly you're getting the classic "...nice little blog you have there...would be a shame to find something that could be interpreted as violating 1 of our 17 problem areas..."
This is the flimsiest paper thin reassurance. They've built a gun with which they can destroy the lives of individuals hosting user generated content, but they've said they're unlikely to use it.
Political winds shift, and if someone is saying something the new government doesn't like, the legislation is there to utterly ruin someone's life.
Unless Ofcom actively say "we will NOT enforce the Online Safety Act against small blogs", the chilling effect is still there. Ofcom need to own this. Either they enforce the bad law, or loudly reject their masters' bidding. None of this "oh i don't want to but i've had to prosecute this crippled blind orphan support forum because one of them insulted islam but ny hands are tied..."
A minister tweeted that it didn’t apply to shotguns, as if that’s legally binding as opposed to you know, the law as written.
Individuals and small groups not held directly liable for comments on their blog unless its proven they're responsible for inculcating that environment.
"Safe harbour" - if someone threatens legal action, the host can pass on liability to the poster of the comment. They can (temporarily) hide/remove the comment until a court decides on its legality.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
And of course, it will turn into yet another game of cat and mouse, as bad actors find new creative ways to bypass automatic censors.
Dead Comment
One of the exemptions is for "Services provided by persons providing education or childcare."
Not doubting it, but if you have a reference to hand it will save me having to search.
If it's just something you remember but don't have a reference then that's OK, I'll go hunting based on your clue.
... unlike the issue of what size of service is covered, this isn't a pinky swear by Ofcom.
Being silly to ridicule overreaching laws is top-trolling! Love it.
To do any good you don't want to cause grief for the victims of the crazy law, you want to cause grief to its perpetrators.
HN/YC could just tell them to go pound sand, no? (Assuming YC doesn't have any operations in the UK; I have no idea.)
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment