4 ms·
The funny thing is, they have a threshold of 100.000 users that must be registered at the site. So a site like unzensuriert.at (like breitbart in the US) which
by stdclass 7y ago
The funny thing is, they have a threshold of 100.000 users that must be registered at the site.
So a site like unzensuriert.at (like breitbart in the US) which is a right leaning / government favourable website will not fall under such a law and won't get penalties.
- ptaipale 7y agoSo, will a site maintainer simply remove the older accounts that have not accessed the site in a while, to keep number of accounts below 100 000?
- ovi256 7y agoDepends if the law says currently registered users or historically registered users.
- buro9 7y agoI run a lot of websites, and this is exactly what I would do. I'd probably keep the content but orphan it and kill the underlying user and profile.
- the_mitsuhiko 7y agoIt’s completely unclear and ridiculous. There are some people on wikipedia atm that try to figure out how wikipedia could possibly comply and what it means: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Liberaler_Humanist/Die_Auswirkungen_des_Klarnamensgesetzes_auf_die_Wikipedia https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Liberaler_Humanist/...
- stdclass 7y agoI wonder what will happen if somebody motivates a lot of people to register on a site, to push them over the threshold. It may also be possible to split your forums to different sites / domains if you reach the thresold. Anyhow I can't see how this will play out in real life and I hope our president will step in and prevent it from happening at all.
- jeena 7y agoSo distributed social media communities like Mastodon will not have the problem?
- stdclass 7y agoI guess not, since there is no single entity/company which holds 100.000 users. But I am 100% sure, our current government would never ever grasp the concept of a federated social network and probably just try to ban it.
- larkeith 7y agoI imagine sensible website operators would limit signups to below the threshold, so they don't run the risk of legislation unexpectedly applying. Otherwise it also becomes an avenue for malicious actors.
- groestl 7y agoIf it works out, and there's no public outcry, they'll just reduce the limit to 10k after a while.
- superwayne 7y agoInterestingly, the current draft of the bill says that the site owner has to delete accounts which were inactive for a year.
- lazyjones 7y ago> The funny thing is, they have a threshold of 100.000 users that must be registered at the site. It's 100.000 users OR revenue of €500.000 OR being media with press subsidies of €50.000+ OR being a service partner providing an online service for such companies. That the law was made in such a way for "unzensuriert.at" ist just nonsense propaganda, there are plenty of left-leaning or straight opposition blogs and forums that are exempt as well (e.g. kontrast.at, run by the SPÖ). It's a law targeted at online forums by newspapers and FB/Google/Twitter. Also, unzensuriert.at is not "right leaning" it's pretty far right and not very friendly to the conservative ÖVP, i.e. the larger part of the government. Exempt are also (apparently) forums on e-commerce websites and reviews/comments, support forums.
- peletiah 7y agoThe fun part is that unzensuriert.at is notorious for the dehumanizing and racist comments posted under their articles but still won't be affected by this law. However, they have turned off their forums a few days ago.
- codedokode 7y agoIf the government will decide whom to prosecute then of course, pro-government websites won't have any problems no matter how many users they have. Laws like this are usually made to be applied selectively.