6 ms·

Charlie Stross's blog is next. Liability is unlimited and there's no provision in law for being a single person or small group of volunteers. You'll be held to

Charlie Stross's blog is next. Liability is unlimited and there's no provision in law for being a single person or small group of volunteers. You'll be held to the same standards as a behemoth with full time lawyers (the stated target of the law but the least likely to be affected by it) http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2024/12/storm-cloud-approaching-rapidl.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2024/12/storm-cl... The entire law is weaponised unintented consequences.

wkat4242 2y ago
> unintented consequences Intended consequences no doubt.
tene80i 2y ago
What standards would you want individuals or small groups to be held to? In a context where it is illegal for a company to allow hate speech or CSAM on their website, should individuals be allowed to? Or do you just mean the punishment should be less?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  The obvious solution is to have law enforcement enforce the law rather than private parties. If someone posts something bad to your site, the police try to find who posted it and arrest them, and the only obligation on the website is to remove the content in response to a valid court order.
  - tene80i 2y ago
    I don't have a strong view on this law – I haven't read enough into it. So I'm interested to know why you believe what you've just written. If a country is trying to, for example, make harder for CSAM to be distributed, why shouldn't the person operating the site where it's being hosted have some responsibility to make sure it can't be hosted there?
    - mananaysiempre 2y ago
      For one thing, because that person is not obliged to follow due process and will likely ban everything that even might even vaguely require them to involve a lawyer. See for example YouTube’s copyright strikes, which are much harsher on the uploader than any existing copyright law.
      - tene80i 2y ago
        Your argument is that it's better to have the illegal stuff (say, CSAM) online than for a site owner to, for practical reasons, ban a lot of legal stuff too? Why?
        noah_buddy 2y ago
        Some sorts of goods should be prioritized over some sorts of bads. There would be no terrorism if we locked every human in a box and kept them there, yet you do not support this position, why? I jest, but I think public discourse is an unalloyed good and I would rather we not compromise informal small discourse for the sake of anti-terrorism, anti-CSAM, etc. These things won’t be fully rooted out, they’ll just go to ground. Discourse will be harmed though.
        dcow 2y ago
        That is not the argument. The argument is that, with appropriate court order, a site operator must take down the illegal material (if it hasn’t already been moderated out). However, the site owner should not be liable for that content appearing on their site since it was not put there by them and since there is value in uncensored/unmoderated online communities. The person who posted the content should be liable, not the site owner. In neither case is the content just freely siting there harming the public and unable to be removed because nobody is liable for punishment. I think an interesting alternate angle here would be to require unmoderated community admins to keep record of real identity info for participants, so if something bad shows up the person who posted it is trivially identifiable and can easily be reprimanded. This has other problems, of course, but is interesting to consider.
        2y ago
- amiga386 2y ago
  How about: Individuals and small groups not held directly liable for comments on their blog unless its proven they're responsible for inculcating that environment. "Safe harbour" - if someone threatens legal action, the host can pass on liability to the poster of the comment. They can (temporarily) hide/remove the comment until a court decides on its legality.
- ta8645 2y ago
  How about have separate laws for CSAM and "hate speech". Because CSAM is most likely just a fig-leaf for the primary motivation of these laws.
0xbadcafebee 2y ago
big DMCA energy
aimazon 2y ago
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-content/helping-small-services-navigate-the-online-safety-act/ 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."
- mlfreeman 2y ago
  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".
- ColinWright 2y ago
  "... 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.
- pembrook 2y ago
  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 2y ago
bdzr 2y ago
> the stated target of the law but the least likely to be affected by it The least likely to be negatively affected. This will absolutely be good for them in that it just adds another item to the list of things that prevents new entrants from competing with them.
eminent101 2y ago
This is an honest question. Why does a blog need to shutdown? If they moderate every comment before it is published on the website, what's the problem? I ask because I've got a UK-based blog too. It has got comments feature. Wouldn't enabling moderation for all comments be enough?
- Mindwipe 2y ago
  No, you still need to do things like write an impact assessment etc and you're still on the hook for "illegal" comments where you aren't a judge and have to arbitrarily decide what might be when you have no legal expertise whatsoever.
  - eminent101 2y ago
    If I'm moderating all comments before they're published on the website, what's the problem? I mean, I've got a simple tech blog. I'm not going to publish random drive-by comments. Only comments that relate to my blog are ever going to be published. Am I making sense?
    - Mindwipe 2y ago
      Does anyone in your blog comments ever discuss circumvention of DRM? That's a criminal offence in the UK (two year prison sentence in some circumstances). Do you have a good feeling for what might count as incitement in those circumstances?
      - eminent101 2y ago
        > Does anyone in your blog comments ever discuss circumvention of DRM? No, they don't. My blog is not all that popular. It has got some programming puzzles, Linux HOW-TOs and stuff. Most of my audience is just my friends.
        ksec 2y ago
        The point is, whether you think the comments are safe is irrelevant because you are not the judge. Of course that is the cynical version of it. But as others have pointed out some people dont like these sort of risk.
throwaway48476 2y ago
Its very much intended. It's easier for the powers that be to deal with a few favored oligarchs. They're building a great British firewall like china.
ekianjo 2y ago
> The entire law is weaponised unintented consequences. That would assume no malice from the goverment? Isn't the default assumption that every government want to exert control over its population at this stage, even in "democracies"? There's nothing unintended here.
oliwarner 2y ago
I thought that posts with comments are an explicit exception from the OSB. From Ofcom: > this exemption would cover online services where the only content users can upload or share is comments on media articles you have published
- amiga386 2y ago
  From the Ofcom regulations (https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/online-safety/information-for-industry/illegal-harms/overview-of-regulated-services.pdf?v=387540 https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/onli...): > 1.17 A U2U service is exempt if the only way users can communicate on it is by posting comments or reviews on the service provider’s own content (as distinct from another user’s content). A blog is only exempt if users communicate to the blogpost author, on the topic of the blogpost. If they comment on each other, or go off-topic, then the blog is not exempt. That's why that exemption is basically useless. Anyone can write "hey commenter number 3 i agree commenter number 1's behaviour is shocking" and your exemption is out the window.
  - oliwarner 2y ago
    Yeah I see what you mean, that does seem oddly useless. And thanks for finding the correct section. I'd like to say we could trust the implementation and enforcement of this law to make sense and follow the spirit of existing blog comment sections rather than the letter of a law that could be twisted against almost anyone accepting comments —for most people GDPR compliance enforcement has been a light touch, with warnings rather than immediate fines— but that's not really how laws should work.

wkat4242 2y ago

> unintented consequences Intended consequences no doubt.

tene80i 2y ago

What standards would you want individuals or small groups to be held to? In a context where it is illegal for a company to allow hate speech or CSAM on their website, should individuals be allowed to? Or do you just mean the punishment should be less?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
The obvious solution is to have law enforcement enforce the law rather than private parties. If someone posts something bad to your site, the police try to find who posted it and arrest them, and the only obligation on the website is to remove the content in response to a valid court order.
- tene80i 2y ago
  I don't have a strong view on this law – I haven't read enough into it. So I'm interested to know why you believe what you've just written. If a country is trying to, for example, make harder for CSAM to be distributed, why shouldn't the person operating the site where it's being hosted have some responsibility to make sure it can't be hosted there?
  - mananaysiempre 2y ago
    For one thing, because that person is not obliged to follow due process and will likely ban everything that even might even vaguely require them to involve a lawyer. See for example YouTube’s copyright strikes, which are much harsher on the uploader than any existing copyright law.
    - tene80i 2y ago
      Your argument is that it's better to have the illegal stuff (say, CSAM) online than for a site owner to, for practical reasons, ban a lot of legal stuff too? Why?
      - noah_buddy 2y ago
        Some sorts of goods should be prioritized over some sorts of bads. There would be no terrorism if we locked every human in a box and kept them there, yet you do not support this position, why? I jest, but I think public discourse is an unalloyed good and I would rather we not compromise informal small discourse for the sake of anti-terrorism, anti-CSAM, etc. These things won’t be fully rooted out, they’ll just go to ground. Discourse will be harmed though.
      - dcow 2y ago
        That is not the argument. The argument is that, with appropriate court order, a site operator must take down the illegal material (if it hasn’t already been moderated out). However, the site owner should not be liable for that content appearing on their site since it was not put there by them and since there is value in uncensored/unmoderated online communities. The person who posted the content should be liable, not the site owner. In neither case is the content just freely siting there harming the public and unable to be removed because nobody is liable for punishment. I think an interesting alternate angle here would be to require unmoderated community admins to keep record of real identity info for participants, so if something bad shows up the person who posted it is trivially identifiable and can easily be reprimanded. This has other problems, of course, but is interesting to consider.
      - 2y ago
amiga386 2y ago
How about: Individuals and small groups not held directly liable for comments on their blog unless its proven they're responsible for inculcating that environment. "Safe harbour" - if someone threatens legal action, the host can pass on liability to the poster of the comment. They can (temporarily) hide/remove the comment until a court decides on its legality.
ta8645 2y ago
How about have separate laws for CSAM and "hate speech". Because CSAM is most likely just a fig-leaf for the primary motivation of these laws.

0xbadcafebee 2y ago

big DMCA energy

aimazon 2y ago

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-content/helping-small-services-navigate-the-online-safety-act/ 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."

mlfreeman 2y ago
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".
ColinWright 2y ago
"... 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.
pembrook 2y ago
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 2y ago

bdzr 2y ago

> the stated target of the law but the least likely to be affected by it The least likely to be negatively affected. This will absolutely be good for them in that it just adds another item to the list of things that prevents new entrants from competing with them.

eminent101 2y ago

This is an honest question. Why does a blog need to shutdown? If they moderate every comment before it is published on the website, what's the problem? I ask because I've got a UK-based blog too. It has got comments feature. Wouldn't enabling moderation for all comments be enough?

Mindwipe 2y ago
No, you still need to do things like write an impact assessment etc and you're still on the hook for "illegal" comments where you aren't a judge and have to arbitrarily decide what might be when you have no legal expertise whatsoever.
- eminent101 2y ago
  If I'm moderating all comments before they're published on the website, what's the problem? I mean, I've got a simple tech blog. I'm not going to publish random drive-by comments. Only comments that relate to my blog are ever going to be published. Am I making sense?
  - Mindwipe 2y ago
    Does anyone in your blog comments ever discuss circumvention of DRM? That's a criminal offence in the UK (two year prison sentence in some circumstances). Do you have a good feeling for what might count as incitement in those circumstances?
    - eminent101 2y ago
      > Does anyone in your blog comments ever discuss circumvention of DRM? No, they don't. My blog is not all that popular. It has got some programming puzzles, Linux HOW-TOs and stuff. Most of my audience is just my friends.
      - ksec 2y ago
        The point is, whether you think the comments are safe is irrelevant because you are not the judge. Of course that is the cynical version of it. But as others have pointed out some people dont like these sort of risk.

throwaway48476 2y ago

Its very much intended. It's easier for the powers that be to deal with a few favored oligarchs. They're building a great British firewall like china.

ekianjo 2y ago

> The entire law is weaponised unintented consequences. That would assume no malice from the goverment? Isn't the default assumption that every government want to exert control over its population at this stage, even in "democracies"? There's nothing unintended here.

oliwarner 2y ago

I thought that posts with comments are an explicit exception from the OSB. From Ofcom: > this exemption would cover online services where the only content users can upload or share is comments on media articles you have published

amiga386 2y ago
From the Ofcom regulations (https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/online-safety/information-for-industry/illegal-harms/overview-of-regulated-services.pdf?v=387540 https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/onli...): > 1.17 A U2U service is exempt if the only way users can communicate on it is by posting comments or reviews on the service provider’s own content (as distinct from another user’s content). A blog is only exempt if users communicate to the blogpost author, on the topic of the blogpost. If they comment on each other, or go off-topic, then the blog is not exempt. That's why that exemption is basically useless. Anyone can write "hey commenter number 3 i agree commenter number 1's behaviour is shocking" and your exemption is out the window.
- oliwarner 2y ago
  Yeah I see what you mean, that does seem oddly useless. And thanks for finding the correct section. I'd like to say we could trust the implementation and enforcement of this law to make sense and follow the spirit of existing blog comment sections rather than the letter of a law that could be twisted against almost anyone accepting comments —for most people GDPR compliance enforcement has been a light touch, with warnings rather than immediate fines— but that's not really how laws should work.