zlacker

>>buro9+(OP)
I don't understand this decision. Running a website as an individual is a liability risk for all sorts of reasons for which there are simple (and cheap) mitigations. Even if you believe this legislation is a risk, there are options other than shutting down. The overreaction here is no different than when GDPR came in, and we all collectively lost our minds and started shutting things down and then discovered there was zero consequence for mom-and-pop websites. I assume this isn't a genuine post and is actually an attempt at some sort of protest, with no intention of actually shutting down the websites. Or, more likely, they're just old and tired and ready to move on from this period of their life, running these websites.

>>_fjg8+Ha
What are the simple and cheap mitigations you have in mind?

>>baggy_+qb
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.

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

>>baggy_+md
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.

>>aimazo+xe
> 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.