zlacker

>>ColinW+(OP)
Right or wrong I think many have misread the legislation or read poor coverage of it given people's reasoning.

Much of things boils down to doing a risk assessment and deciding on mitigations.

Unfortunately we live in a world where if you allow users to upload and share images, with zero checks, you are disturbingly likely to end up hosting CSAM.

Ofcom have guides, risk assessment tools and more, if you think any of this is relevant to you that's a good place to start.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...

>>IanCal+7b
it's not that simple - illegal and harmful content can include things like hate speech - worth a longer read... https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/14/online_safety_act/

If I ran a small forum in the UK I would shut it down - not worth risk of jail time for getting it wrong.

>>docfla+Gb
The new rules cover any kind of illegal content that can appear online, but the Act includes a list of specific offences that you should consider. These are:

    terrorism
    child sexual exploitation and abuse (CSEA) offences, including
        grooming
        image-based child sexual abuse material (CSAM)
        CSAM URLs
    hate
    harassment, stalking, threats and abuse
    controlling or coercive behaviour
    intimate image abuse
    extreme pornography
    sexual exploitation of adults
    human trafficking
    unlawful immigration
    fraud and financial offences
    proceeds of crime
    drugs and psychoactive substances
    firearms, knives and other weapons
    encouraging or assisting suicide
    foreign interference
    animal cruelty

>>docfla+bc
> hate

Is it really just listed as one word? What's the legal definition of hate?

>>seposi+Ac
Whatever the current government says it means. What did you think it meant?

>>Camper+Nf
I don't see what the big deal is - Governments don't change hands or selectively prosecute.