[pembrook]

Apparently any piece of informational older than a year has no value to you?

Thankfully you aren't writing the laws in my country.

Creating a law that makes internet creators want to delete all historical record for fear of potential prosecution under extremely broad terms -- doesn't seem like it's in the interest of the greater good.

[aimazon]

The law has absolutely nothing to do with historic content, it has no provisions for or relevance to content published decades ago. Even in the most cautious response to this law, there is no reason to take content offline.

[phendrenad2]

Counterpoint: I read the law and it seems to me that it absolutely does apply to historic content. Ultimately you may be right, but the fact that there isn't a clear answer means nobody without thousands of dollars to throw at lawyers can take that risk.

[Barrin92]

this is a strange framing because Britain had internet and content laws before these recent changes and people were just fine with the risk that came with running them.

Let's be real, for most dead sites this is an excuse for old admins to close the thing down because they got tired of running it. For sites with fewer than millions of users you basically needed to add a contact form and report button. These places are just deserted, and instead of having a few angry oldheads screaming at you, you can just blame the government

[phendrenad2]

> Britain had internet and content laws before these recent changes and people were just fine with the risk that came with running them

I think it's equally likely that people didn't take them seriously, but each new law has had increasingly dire consequences AND has been increasingly difficult to decipher. So there's that.