• Sure, that's if you take the text literally.

    But if you take a more vibes based reading, then I'm pretty sure OFCOM will be cool about everything.

  • Lolz.

    If Ofcom, the home secretary and the houses of parliament and lords don't want small sites to interpret what they're saying in their own words when they write a law and issue guidance then they do have a way to do something about it... They can declare all entities with a global turnover less than and a global staff count less than, exempt except in the most egregious cases.

    That would immediately dispel my fears.

    But that's not happening, instead we have a fact checker threading a needle through a slim hole by interpretating the risk and likelihood for themselves without having skin in the game.

    All I'm using is Ofcoms own guidance, linked right there in the first two posts, the guidance they issued for does who fall in scope, the definitions of multi risk as defined in there, the definitions of harmful but not illegal content that would trigger it, and reasonable questions that arises from those docs like "could a child register on your site?", "might anyone ever harass another person via the site?", "could fraud occur via your site?", "might someone be racist or homophobic or transphobia via your site"?... And I conclude, given the guidance, that yes, technically they could.

    Based on the guidance, and my interpretation of it as published by Ofcom, we are multi risk and medium risk... If I'm wrong, and I may be, then it's the published materials that have led me to that conclusion.

    Telling me that the likelihood of receiving a fine is low, etc... really ignores the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and everything Ofcom has said about it. From that perspective the fact checking ignores the vast majority of facts, and resorts instead to speculation based on past enforcement for another Act.

About

Avatar for Velocio @Velocio started