zlacker

[return to "Lfgss shutting down 16th March 2025 (day before Online Safety Act is enforced)"]
1. fuzzfa+AW1[view] [source] 2024-12-17 11:33:58
>>buro9+(OP)
>the Online Safety Act was supposed to hold big tech to account, but in fact they're the only ones who will be able to comply... it consolidates more on those platforms.

This says it so well, acknowledging the work of a misguided bureaucracy.

Looks like it now requires an online community to have its own bureaucracy in place, to preemptively stand by ready to effectively interact in new ways with a powerful, growing, long-established authoritarian government bureaucracy of overwhelming size and increasing overreach.

Measures like this are promulgated in such a way that only large highly prosperous outfits beyond a certain size can justify maintaining readiness for their own bureaucracies to spring into action on a full-time basis with as much staff as necessary to compare to the scale of the government bureaucracy concerned, and as concerns may arise that mattered naught before. Especially when there are new open-ended provisions for unpredictable show-stoppers, now fiercely codified to the distinct disadvantage of so many non-bureaucrats just because they are online.

If you think you are going to be able to rise to the occasion and dutifully establish your own embryonic bureaucracy for the first time to cope with this type unstable landscape, you are mistaken.

It was already bad enough before without a newly imposed, bigger moving target than everything else combined :\

Nope, these type regulations only allow firms that already have a prominent well-funded bureaucracy of their own, on a full-time basis, long-established after growing in response to less-onerous mandates of the past. Anyone else who cannot just take this in stride without batting an eye, need not apply.

◧◩
2. IanCal+OX1[view] [source] 2024-12-17 11:48:27
>>fuzzfa+AW1
> Looks like it now requires an online community to have its own bureaucracy in place

What do you mean by bureaucracy in this case? Doing the risk assessment?

◧◩◪
3. fuzzfa+s72[view] [source] 2024-12-17 13:32:33
>>IanCal+OX1
Good question.

I would say more like the prohibitive cost of compliance comes from the non-productive (or even anti-productive) nature of the activities needed to do so, as an ongoing basis.

An initial risk assessment is a lot more of a fixed target with a goal that is in sight if not well within reach. Once it's behind you, it's possible to get back to putting more effort into productive actions. Assessments are often sprinted through so things can get "back to normal" ASAP, which can be worth it sometimes. Other times it's a world of hurt without paying attention to whether it's a moving goalpoast and the "sprint" might need to last forever.

Which can also be coped with successfully, like dealing with large bureaucratic institutions as customers, since that's another time when you've got to have your own little bureaucracy. To be fully dedicated to the interaction and well-staffed enough for continuous 24/7 problem-solving operation at a moment's notice. If it's just a skeleton crew at a minimum they will have a stunted ability for teamwork since the most effective deployment can be more like a relay race, where each member must pull the complete weight, go the distance, not drop the baton, and pass it with finesse.

While outrunning a pursuing horde and their support vehicles ;)

[go to top]