zlacker

>>buro9+(OP)
We have something similar in Australia with the Online Safety Act 2021. I think this highlights a critical misunderstanding at the heart of the legislation: it imagines the internet as a handful of giant platforms rather than a rich tapestry of independent, community-driven spaces. The Online Safety Act’s broad, vague requirements and potential penalties are trivial hurdles for billion-dollar companies with in-house legal teams, compliance departments, and automatic moderation tooling. But for a single individual running a forum as a labour of love—or a small collective operating on volunteer time—this creates a legal minefield where any disgruntled user can threaten real financial and personal harm.

In practice, this means the local cycling forum that fostered trust, friendship, and even mental health support is at risk of vanishing, while the megacorps sail on without a scratch. Ironically, a measure allegedly designed to rein in “Big Tech” ends up discouraging small, independent communities and pushing users toward the same large platforms the legislation was supposedly targeting.

It’s discouraging to watch governments double down on complex, top-down solutions that ignore the cultural and social value of these smaller spaces. We need policy that recognises genuine community-led forums as a public good, encourages sustainable moderation practices, and holds bad actors accountable without strangling the grassroots projects that make the internet more human. Instead, this act risks hollowing out our online diversity, leaving behind a more homogenised, corporate-dominated landscape.

>>schapp+8H
> it imagines the internet as a handful of giant platforms rather than a rich tapestry of independent, community-driven spaces.

As sad as it may be, their imagination is correct. The small spaces, summed up all together, are lost in the rounding errors.

>>pif+KM1
Also nobody is going after the small spaces, because they don't even know they exist. And when they do they can be shut down I guess, if there really is misunderstanding. I don't get preemptively doing it other than giving up after a long duty of almost 30 years and using this as excuse. At least pass them to someone else that won't care about the liability.

>>vasco+sV1
> when they do they can be shut down I guess, if there really is misunderstanding.

The fear some have is not misunderstandings, but disgruntled types (the sort of people who blow up over a perfectly reasonable moderation decision) and common garden variety griefers reporting things to cause inconvenience. I know people who have in the past run forums and had to put up with spurious reports to their ISP/host or even on one occasion local law enforcement. If someone did this it would likely go nowhere in the end but not before causing much stress and perhaps cost via paying for legal advice.

> I don't get preemptively doing it other than giving up after a long duty of almost 30 years and using this as excuse.

Having been involved less directly with that sort of admin & moderation work I can see this change being the final straw after putting up with the people of the internet for years. Calling it “just an excuse” seems rather harsh.

> At least pass them to someone else that won't care about the liability.

Depending on the terms people agreed to when signing up and posting, passing on the reigns might not be nearly as legally/morally clear-cut as several in these comments are assuming.