[aimazon]

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.

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."

[pembrook]

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..."

[throwaway48476]

For my friends everything, for my enemies the law.

Uneven enforcement is the goal.

[HPsquared]

Sovereign is he who makes the exception.

[owisd]

Changing the code of practice is a years long statutory consultation process, they're not going to be able to change the rules to go after you on a whim.

[pembrook]

If you can’t find something to accuse from the SEVENTEEN “areas of focus” they’ve already designated in the law then I would argue you lack the creativity and thirst for power needed to climb the ranks as a politician.

[rkachowski]

> 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.

[ColinWright]

"... unlikely ..."

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.

[fweimer]

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.

[amiga386]

Ofcom need to change the law then.

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..."

[transcriptase]

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.

[throwaway48476]

The democrats wrote a bill to hire 60k new armed IRS agents and promised they wouldn't be used to go after anyone with an income less than 250k. Senator Mike Crapo tried to add an ammendment to put that in the bill but they blocked it. We have a serious problem with politicians lying about the text of bills.

[kelnos]

While I certainly would prefer that the IRS first and foremost go after tax evasion perpetuated by the wealthy (if for no other reason than there's likely more bank for the buck there), tax law is tax law. If someone making less than $250k/yr is evading paying taxes, the IRS should go after them just the same as if it was someone making $5M/yr.

[throwaway48476]

Usually people complain that the IRS doesn't go after >250k. I've never heard anyone argue that they don't go after <240k enough. This is why the democrats promised it would only be used to go after >250k.

The problem is the dishonesty, saying the intent is one thing but being unwilling to codify the stated intent.

[bdangubic]

in order for going after everyone (or whatever arbitrary number we choose) it needs to be economically feasible. it is simple math and should be explained in simple math terms. it cost on average X amount to “go after someone” - if that amount exceeds what potential benefit is based of course on earning then we do it. otherwise it makes no sense. except we make this a political issue (as everything else). any sane person running IRS would do the math and figure out what the number is where it makes sense to go after someone

[Brian_K_White]

Getting one persons taxes is not why you enforce, any more than why the police enforce other kinds of laws that don't have anything to do with bill collecting.

[mlfreeman]

The use of "unlikely" just screams that Ofcom will eventually pull a Vader..."We are altering the deal, pray we don't alter it any further".

[incompatible]

"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.

[smsm42]

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".