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
In the U.S. we have the concept of "piercing the corporate veil" whereby if you can prove that a LLC (effectively a corporate entity created to shield owner's liability) is a flimsy legal device whose only intent is to skirt laws like this one, you are able to go after the LLC owner personally anyway.

Does the UK have a similar concept?

>>mosbur+Ev
In a case like the forums in question though you wouldn't set up the LLC so you can skirt the law. You'd set up the LLC and make a good faith attempt to comply with the law.

It may turn out that it is too much work to comply and so you might still need to shut down, but with the LLC you've got a lot more leeway to try without personal risk.