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
the real risk I see is that as it's written, and as Ofcom are communicating, there is now a digital version of a SWATing for disgruntled individuals.

the liability is very high, and whilst I would perceive the risk to be low if it were based on how we moderate... the real risk is what happens when one moderates another person.

as I outlined, whether it's attempts to revoke the domain names with ICANN, or fake DMCA reports to hosting companies, or stalkers, or pizzas being ordered to your door, or being signed up to porn sites, or being DOX'd, or being bombarded with emails... all of this stuff has happened, and happens.

but the new risk is that there is nothing about the Online Safety Act or Ofcom's communication that gives me confidence that this cannot be weaponised against myself, as the person who ultimately does the moderation and runs the site.

and that risk changes even more in the current culture war climate, given that I've come out, and that those attacks now take a personal aspect too.

the risk feels too high for me personally. it's, a lot.