zlacker

>>buro9+(OP)
People seem to forget that the more legislation there is around something the more it is only feasible to do if you are a corporate person. Human persons just don't have the same rights or protections from liabilty.

>>superk+55
If you read the guidance:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/onli...

It amounts to your basic terms of service. It means that you'll need to moderate your forums, and prove that you have a policy for moderation. (basically what all decent forums do anyway) The crucial thing is that you need to record that you've done it, and reassessed it. and prove "you understand the 17 priority areas"

Its similar for what a trustee of a small charity is supposed to do each year for its due diligence.

>>Kaiser+bc
Is the trustee of a small charity on the hook for £18,000,000 in minimum fines?

>>mulmen+Ch
The maximum fines are 10% of "qualifying worldwide revenue", or £18M, whichever is larger. This is an exercise in stopping companies from claiming tiny revenues when they're actually much larger, rather than fining genuinely tiny companies (or individuals) a ridiculous multiple of their value (or wealth).

Plenty of things in UK law attract "an unlimited fine", but even that doesn't lead to people actually being fined amounts greater than all the money that's ever existed.

>>andrew+Vz
Sounds like a legally risky environment. One of the biggest things we've understood about the world over the last century has been that commerce flourishes under an environment of legal certainty.