I thought that was a tech site, are they hosting porn now? I'd have thought they'd already police hate crimes, encouraging suicide, self-harm, and such?? Perhaps they have a special section where they encourage kids to huff glue?
You’re missing the point. The law is so vague and broad that it could be interpreted as covering even far more innocuous content than the few extreme examples you listed here.
The 'if they have nothing to hide' argument? Really?
I look forward to reading your fully compliant risk assessment before interacting with this comment, lest it be judged to contain offensive, inappropriate, or pornographic content.
Because the UK refuses to elaborate on who qualifies under the act, and the only "safe" way to operate a website that might hypothetically be used by someone in the UK is to simply not.
The costs required to operate any website covered by this act (which is effectively all websites) is grossly excessive and there are either NO exceptions, or the UK has refused to explain who is excepted.
> The costs required to operate any website covered by this act (which is effectively all websites) is grossly excessive
That depends what you count as the costs. If you're a small site[0] and go through the risk assessment[1], that's the only costs you have (unless pornography is involved in which case yes, you'll need the age verification bits.)
[0] ie. you don't have millions of users
[1] Assuming Ofcom aren't being deliberately misleading here.
Children's access assessments - 32 pages
Guidance on highly effective age assurance and other Part 5 duties - 50 pages
Protecting people from illegal harms online - 84 pages
Illegal content Codes of Practice for user-to-user services - 84 pages