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
Are you claiming that setting up a CIC removes individual liability for wrongdoing? So, I set up a CIC for running forums, with $0 of assets and negligible running costs, then in the event of a fine I'm scot free?

>>tempfi+og
Yes. A CIC is just a limited company with some additional community interest obligations. You can set up a limited company to shield yourself from liability (i.e: if your website is sued by a user, your personal assets aren't at risk) and only in exceptional cases (where serious lawbreaking is involved) could you be held personally liable.

Rightly or wrongly, limited companies in the UK provide a high degree of protection for wrongdoing. Defrauding HMRC out of hundreds of thousands of pounds and suffering no consequence is happening day in day out. An Ofcom fine is nothing by comparison.

>>aimazo+hh
1. Thanks for this very helpful information about how some seemingly quite simple legal manoeuvring can be used to dodge 99% of this law.

2. Doesn't the fact that simple legal manoeuvring can be used to dodge 99% of this law make the law (and laws like it) farcical on its face? Merely an elaborate set of extra hoops that only serves to punish the naive, while increasing everyone's compliance costs?

>>akobol+Rn
The law is designed to target large companies that aren't seen as doing enough to prevent harm on the internet. Setting up a CIC doesn't dodge the law, the legal entity (the CIC) remains accountable for conduct on the website. Setting up a CIC removes the risk from the individual website operator because they're no longer operating the website, instead the website is operated by a separate legal entity. The website could still be held accountable for violating the law but the consequence would be the CIC is fined, not the individual behind it. The same principle as any limited liability company.

>>aimazo+To
>the consequence would be the CIC is fined

Does this in practice mean that the original human person would have to pay that fine? What would the consequences likely be for the original human person?

If those consequences remain severe, then it's not a simple legal manoeuvre after all. This reduces farcicality, but also means there's no way for an individual to safely run this kind of website.

If those consequences round to zero, my next question would be: Can a large company spin up a CIC just to shield itself in the same way? (If so, it seems the farce would be complete.)

>>akobol+ur
In practice the person would not have to pay the fine. The company would. If the company had no cash to pay it then it could be forced into insolvency.

No a large company can't spin up a CIC to run a business website (because it is not community interest), but it doesn't need to, it is already a limited liability company. However this is not a farce, the limited liability applies to the shareholders, not the company. The company gets fined, and has to pay the fine or risk having its assets siezed.... then the shareholders have lost their company. The liability of the shareholders is limited to the shareholders invested amount, ie the shareholders can't lose any more than they put in. So if the fine was more than the company can afford, the shareholders lose their company, but don't have to pay the rest.

It is not a farce, because losing a profit earning company is bad for a shareholder

>>jimnot+2T
Thanks for the explanation. However, there's one thing I've now realised I'm not clear on:

Could a company create a non-CIC sub-company (with ~$0 in assets) to own the website, and thereby shield shareholders of the original company? (If so, I think farcicality is conserved.)