Comment

Comment on Important News - Geoblocking of the UK

PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

Jesus Christmas.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Act_2023

despite warnings from experts that it is not possible to implement such a scanning mechanism without undermining users’ privacy.[6] The government has said that it does not intend to enforce this provision of the act until it becomes technically feasible to do so.[7]

Platforms failing this duty would be liable to fines of up to £18 million or 10% of their annual turnover, whichever is higher.

It obliges large social media platforms not to remove, and to preserve access to, journalistic or “democratically important” content such as user comments on political parties and issues.

What the FUCK

source

Sort:hotnew top

possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
£18 million pounds is a huge amount. That is around $22.3 million USD. Do they seriously think some hobby website has that kind of cash? Does the UK not have laws about cruel and unusual punishment?

source
Demigodrick@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Yes - wtf indeed.

The whole thing is insane. If it was targetted at platforms like Meta or X, I’d totally get it (and maybe even agree with parts of it).

The fact it is a blanket provision and affects even single user mastodon instances, or 93 year old Betty’s gardening tips forum, in the same way as Facebook and Instagram, tells you a lot about the idiots/morons at OFCOM/UK Gov who put this together.

If 93 year old Betty’s gardening forum doesn’t currently have all the paperwork in place right now, btw, she’s liable for that fine.

That’s how stupid this all is, and why I’m nope-ing out of it.

source
- SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Does anyone know if this has ever been used as a base for litigation so far?
  
  source
  - Emperor@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    The OSA comes into effect late March.
    
    source
- possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  That fine is more than more money than most of us will make in our entire lifetime.
  
  source
- PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Yeah. It’s like they went out of their way to make every part of it as backwards as they could manage.
  
  The part about making it illegal to moderate political content makes me wonder if some aspects of this have roots in trying to disable efforts to combat foreign interference in the UK’s elections.
  
  source
  - Demigodrick@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I think some of it is actually OK on a macro scale, and stuff like trying to stop interference might have been sensible if thought out well. But the scope is too large, the guidance too broad, and the language used by OFCOM too threatening to those trying to learn. The burden on one person to comply is insane - it takes a team of lawyers just to read and decipher the 1000+ pages of guidance.
    
    If they’d just realised a little while ago that their scope was way off and redefined who this applies to, there might have been more of a chance of complying.
    
    source
    PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Well… maybe, I have no idea, I just heard of all of this today. But “£18 million or 10%, whichever is HIGHER” is hard for me to read as any way but malicious.
    
    source