6 ms·

Don't run a website personally, set up a separate legal entity. The UK is one of the easiest places in the world to do this and has well-understood legal entiti

Don't run a website personally, set up a separate legal entity. The UK is one of the easiest places in the world to do this and has well-understood legal entities that fit the model of a community-operated organisation (i.e: "community interest company"). The fact that the OP is running such a large community as an individual is bonkers in the first place, independent of this new act.

baggy_trough 2y ago
Personally, I think it's bonkers that an individual can't run an online forum.
- aimazon 2y ago
  I agree but that ship sailed a decade ago. There's no additional risk with the new bill, it's more of the same. If there are concerns about liability because of this new bill then there should be concerns about liability already. I sympathise with the OP because at some point everyone becomes too old to deal with the headaches of running a community. I have no opposition to their choice to shut down the forum. I just don't believe liability as a result of the new bill is the reason.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    but there is additional risk and liability, because the new act creates more work in order to be compliant (which is what increases the liability), and it increases the risk of being attacked. there's never been an instance of any of the proclaimed things that this act protects [...] people from, so he should be safe, right? but despite this, he is already being attacked, and those attacks will not just continue but they are likely to increase because the attack surface has become larger.
  - pavel_lishin 2y ago
    > I just don't believe liability as a result of the new bill is the reason. It seems like OP is commenting on this thread; you can accuse them of lying directly, if you'd like.
- jodrellblank 2y ago
  Personally, I think it's bonkers that you think "I don't have time to comply with the law so I shouldn't have to" is a reasonable position.
  - baggy_trough 2y ago
    People who think this law is reasonable are bonkers.
    - jodrellblank 2y ago
      People who go for reductio ad ad-hom are making low quality internet arguments. Restauranteurs can't say they don't have time to comply with the law. Construction companies can't. Doctors can't. Why should online service providers be able to?
graemep 2y ago
It raises the cost and hassle involved from "I need a cheap hosting package" to I need to do paperwork, keep and file accounts, etc.
tempfile 2y ago
Are you claiming that setting up a CIC removes individual liability for wrongdoing? So, I set up a CIC for running forums, with $0 of assets and negligible running costs, then in the event of a fine I'm scot free?
- aimazon 2y ago
  Yes. A CIC is just a limited company with some additional community interest obligations. You can set up a limited company to shield yourself from liability (i.e: if your website is sued by a user, your personal assets aren't at risk) and only in exceptional cases (where serious lawbreaking is involved) could you be held personally liable. Rightly or wrongly, limited companies in the UK provide a high degree of protection for wrongdoing. Defrauding HMRC out of hundreds of thousands of pounds and suffering no consequence is happening day in day out. An Ofcom fine is nothing by comparison.
  - morkalork 2y ago
    How would that work if someone set up a CIC, used it to rent a VPS and did some grey-hat hacking activities?
    - jimnotgym 2y ago
      If the person committed a criminal offence under the Computer Misuse Act then they would face criminal sanctions, personally. The Online safety bill gives Ofcom the power to levy regulatory fines, not criminal sanctions, so is very different
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - akoboldfrying 2y ago
    1. Thanks for this very helpful information about how some seemingly quite simple legal manoeuvring can be used to dodge 99% of this law. 2. Doesn't the fact that simple legal manoeuvring can be used to dodge 99% of this law make the law (and laws like it) farcical on its face? Merely an elaborate set of extra hoops that only serves to punish the naive, while increasing everyone's compliance costs?

baggy_trough 2y ago

Personally, I think it's bonkers that an individual can't run an online forum.

aimazon 2y ago
I agree but that ship sailed a decade ago. There's no additional risk with the new bill, it's more of the same. If there are concerns about liability because of this new bill then there should be concerns about liability already. I sympathise with the OP because at some point everyone becomes too old to deal with the headaches of running a community. I have no opposition to their choice to shut down the forum. I just don't believe liability as a result of the new bill is the reason.
- em-bee 2y ago
  but there is additional risk and liability, because the new act creates more work in order to be compliant (which is what increases the liability), and it increases the risk of being attacked. there's never been an instance of any of the proclaimed things that this act protects [...] people from, so he should be safe, right? but despite this, he is already being attacked, and those attacks will not just continue but they are likely to increase because the attack surface has become larger.
- pavel_lishin 2y ago
  > I just don't believe liability as a result of the new bill is the reason. It seems like OP is commenting on this thread; you can accuse them of lying directly, if you'd like.
jodrellblank 2y ago
Personally, I think it's bonkers that you think "I don't have time to comply with the law so I shouldn't have to" is a reasonable position.
- baggy_trough 2y ago
  People who think this law is reasonable are bonkers.
  - jodrellblank 2y ago
    People who go for reductio ad ad-hom are making low quality internet arguments. Restauranteurs can't say they don't have time to comply with the law. Construction companies can't. Doctors can't. Why should online service providers be able to?

graemep 2y ago

It raises the cost and hassle involved from "I need a cheap hosting package" to I need to do paperwork, keep and file accounts, etc.

tempfile 2y ago

Are you claiming that setting up a CIC removes individual liability for wrongdoing? So, I set up a CIC for running forums, with $0 of assets and negligible running costs, then in the event of a fine I'm scot free?

aimazon 2y ago
Yes. A CIC is just a limited company with some additional community interest obligations. You can set up a limited company to shield yourself from liability (i.e: if your website is sued by a user, your personal assets aren't at risk) and only in exceptional cases (where serious lawbreaking is involved) could you be held personally liable. Rightly or wrongly, limited companies in the UK provide a high degree of protection for wrongdoing. Defrauding HMRC out of hundreds of thousands of pounds and suffering no consequence is happening day in day out. An Ofcom fine is nothing by comparison.
- morkalork 2y ago
  How would that work if someone set up a CIC, used it to rent a VPS and did some grey-hat hacking activities?
  - jimnotgym 2y ago
    If the person committed a criminal offence under the Computer Misuse Act then they would face criminal sanctions, personally. The Online safety bill gives Ofcom the power to levy regulatory fines, not criminal sanctions, so is very different
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- akoboldfrying 2y ago
  1. Thanks for this very helpful information about how some seemingly quite simple legal manoeuvring can be used to dodge 99% of this law. 2. Doesn't the fact that simple legal manoeuvring can be used to dodge 99% of this law make the law (and laws like it) farcical on its face? Merely an elaborate set of extra hoops that only serves to punish the naive, while increasing everyone's compliance costs?