4 ms·
> Speaking as the person who pops up to defend the Online Safety Act Do you defend the aims of the Act, the Act itself, or both? I'm having to figure out comp
by porker 2y ago
> Speaking as the person who pops up to defend the Online Safety Act
Do you defend the aims of the Act, the Act itself, or both?
I'm having to figure out compliance for a volunteer run, donation funded forum, and I think the Act itself could (and should) have been better written. I don't think Ofcom can handle it better than they are, because until it's tested in court they haven't the ability to say what the vague and undefined terms mean.
- cjs_ac 2y agoThe Online Safety Act is vague because its purpose is not to create a regulatory system, but instead to empower Ofcom to create a regulatory system that can effectively regulate a wide range of business models and online services, including those that do not exist and are currently inconceivable. If you're looking for advice on how to comply with the act, the go-to person is Heather Burns[0]. [0] https://heatherburns.tech/ https://heatherburns.tech/
- JoshTriplett 2y ago> The Online Safety Act is vague because its purpose is not to create a regulatory system, but instead to empower Ofcom to create a regulatory system that can effectively regulate a wide range of business models and online services, including those that do not exist and are currently inconceivable. And that awful purpose is something you see fit to defend?
- pmlnr 2y agoAccording to ofcom, the very site you just linked must have osa risk assessment. I can't find it there, can you?
- pjc50 2y agoIt's not a forum. Only sites which allow user-to-user comms are covered. (realistically the OSA kills the possibility of UK social media startups, which I'm sure everyone is fine with, right?)
- pmlnr 2y agoYou are wrong. Read this: https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/ra_my_self_hosted_single_user_mastodon_instance https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/ra_my_self_hosted_single_user_...