[zimpenfish]

IANAL

> any websites that let users interact with other users has to police illegal content on its site and must implement strong age verification checks.

But I believe you only need age verification if pornography is posted. There's also a bunch of caveats about the size of user base - Ofcom have strongly hinted that this is primarily aimed at services with millions of users but haven't (yet) actually clarified whether it applies to / will be policed for, e.g., single-user self-hosted Fediverse instances or small forums.

I don't blame people for not wanting to take the risk. Personally I'm just putting up a page with answers to their self-assessment risk questionnaire for each of my hosted services (I have a surprising number that could technically come under OSA) and hoping that is good enough.

[tremon]

I believe you only need age verification if pornography is posted

But if you let users interact with other users, you're not in control of whether pornographic material is posted, so it's safer to comply beforehand.

I commend you for keeping your site up and hoping for the best. I don't envy your position.

[bostik]

> Ofcom have strongly hinted that this is primarily aimed at services with millions of users but haven't (yet) actually clarified [...]

This has echoes of the Snooper's Charter and Apple's decision to withdraw ADP from all of UK.

It is not enough for regulators to say they won't anticipate to enforce the law against smaller operators. As long as the law is on the books, it can (and will) be applied to a suitable target regardless of their size.

I saw this this same bullshit play out in Finland. "No, you are all wrong, we will never apply this to anything outside of this narrow band" -- only to come down with the large hammer less than two years later because the target was politically inconvenient.

[jonathanstrange]

I geo-block UK visitors on all of my websites. It's sad but the safest solution.

[_bin_]

why? if you're located elsewhere you can literally just ignore UK/EU law. they don't have jurisdiction over you; worst-case scenario is probably them ordering ISPs to block your site.

[jltsiren]

While the actual risk is minimal, countries do have reach beyond their borders.

For example, if you ever leave your home country to visit a third country, that country could arrest you and extradite you to the country that doesn't like you.

Or they could force any financial institution (or even any company) that wants to do business within their territory to stop doing business with you. The EU probably wouldn't do that, because it's difficult and expensive to get the member states agree on sanctions. The US does it regularly. The UK could probably try, but they have less leverage.

[ryandrake]

What are the chances that someone who runs a tiny, hobby motorcycle forum is going to be extradited from his vacation abroad for breaking a U.K. law? 0.1%? 0.01%? 0.001%? Less? If we only did zero-risk things, nobody would do anything.

[Out_of_Characte]

That probability is entirely based on the premise that the extradition treaties that the UK has signed with other countries would NOT follow UK law despite the treaty soley based on the premise of being a political refugee for their free expression. What will likely happen, and what often happens with other countries in the third world, is that 'politically problematic' people are being caught in neighbouring countries only to be sent back based on friendly geopolitics. There's no law for lawlessness. This is what happens when north koreans escape and get caught in china or russia. This is what could happen when you accidently post something of political consequence on a tiny motorcycle website that isn't usually being watched but one angry user could be someone's worst nightmare. Also, gangs of motorcycle enthousiasts havent been the most inconsequential group of people you could have used as an example.

[ryandrake]

As a US person, living in the US, with a US server, I would have absolutely zero reservations about hosting an online forum that may or may not welcome UK users. Just like I would have zero reservations about going online and blaspheming against a religion (illegal in many countries) swearing (illegal in the U.A.E. & probably elsewhere) or insulting a king (illegal in Thailand).

[_bin_]

even the UK surely wouldn't risk the horrible PR of extraditing someone from a third nation because a citizen of a completely different country didn't follow their asinine laws. and were the person in question an American citizen, it'd be a massively foolish move for both the UK and whichever nation worked with her.

[jonathanstrange]

I like London and want to visit the city again some day.

[rixed]

What if a large number of brits access your websites from a different country? :-/