5 ms·
> Speaking of which, the memo implies that “significance” in this context is interpreted as being relative to the population of the UK, not relative to the user
by jamesbelchamber 1y ago
> Speaking of which, the memo implies that “significance” in this context is interpreted as being relative to the population of the UK, not relative to the user base of the service. We have seen risk assessments that take the other interpretation and consider their UK user base to be “significant” because it makes up a large portion of their overall user base, but the advice we received suggests we should not use this interpretation.
Interesting - this implies that the vast majority of niche communities are not considered to be in scope, so long as they're not on a service like Discord I guess.
- delichon 1y agoThe frog wants a plan for when they inevitably turn up the heat by reinterpreting significance. The time to hop out may be now.
- kelnos 1y agoPerhaps, but this sort of thing is a part of the problem: the law itself is written vaguely enough that Ofcom could at any time change their interpretation and decide that previously out-of-scope communities are now in-scope, and go after them. It's just a variation of selective enforcement.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y agoLaws in general tend to leave a bit of room for interpretation, and then those are to be cemented in specific contexts/scenarios by precedents, that's how I understand many systems of law at at least, maybe it works differently where Libera.chat and Ofcom are based.
- bawolff 1y agoI think its more about the degree. Some level of flexibility makes sense. That leaves room to enforce the intent instead of the technicalities. However if its too broad, then you've basically thrown away rule of law. If everyone is arguably in violation but a government official decides who to enforce, esentially you just have justice by decree.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- HotGarbage 1y agoDoes that mean a significant population of Britbongs are on 4chan?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]