zlacker

>>buro9+(OP)
> this is not a venture that can afford compliance costs... and if we did, what remains is a disproportionately high personal liability for me, and one that could easily be weaponised by disgruntled people who are banned for their egregious behaviour

I'm a little confused about this part. Does the Online Safety Act create personal liabilities for site operators (EDIT: to clarify: would a corporation not be sufficient protection)? Or are they referring to harassment they'd receive from disgruntled users?

Also, this is the first I've heard of Microcosm. It looks like some nice forum software and one I maybe would've considered for future projects. Shame to see it go.

>>bogwog+Dg
I think OP feels it indirectly creates massive personal liabilities for site operators, in that a user can deliberately upload illegal material and then report the site under the Act, opening the site operator up to £18M in fines.

This seems very plausible to me, given what they and other moderators have said about the lengths some people will go to online when they feel antagonised.

>>akobol+3l
While they could, I'm pretty sure that's already illegal, probably in multiple ways.

In the same way that you could be sued for anything, I'm sure you could also be dragged to court for things like that under this law... And probably under existing laws, too.

That doesn't mean you'll lose, though. It just means you're out some time and money and stress.