zlacker

>>ColinW+(OP)
Charlie Stross's blog is next.

Liability is unlimited and there's no provision in law for being a single person or small group of volunteers. You'll be held to the same standards as a behemoth with full time lawyers (the stated target of the law but the least likely to be affected by it)

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2024/12/storm-cl...

The entire law is weaponised unintented consequences.

>>amiga3+wc
There has been new information since that blog post which has reaffirmed the "this is much ado about nothing" takes because Ofcom have said that they do not want to be a burden on smaller sites.

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

"We’ve heard concerns from some smaller services that the new rules will be too burdensome for them. Some of them believe they don’t have the resources to dedicate to assessing risk on their platforms, and to making sure they have measures in place to help them comply with the rules. As a result, some smaller services feel they might need to shut down completely.

So, we wanted to reassure those smaller services that this is unlikely to be the case."

>>aimazo+kf
The Canadian government did the same thing when they accidentally outlawed certain shotguns by restricting bore diameter without specifying it was for rifles.

A minister tweeted that it didn’t apply to shotguns, as if that’s legally binding as opposed to you know, the law as written.

>>transc+8j
The democrats wrote a bill to hire 60k new armed IRS agents and promised they wouldn't be used to go after anyone with an income less than 250k. Senator Mike Crapo tried to add an ammendment to put that in the bill but they blocked it. We have a serious problem with politicians lying about the text of bills.

>>throwa+tm
While I certainly would prefer that the IRS first and foremost go after tax evasion perpetuated by the wealthy (if for no other reason than there's likely more bank for the buck there), tax law is tax law. If someone making less than $250k/yr is evading paying taxes, the IRS should go after them just the same as if it was someone making $5M/yr.

>>kelnos+Xn
Usually people complain that the IRS doesn't go after >250k. I've never heard anyone argue that they don't go after <240k enough. This is why the democrats promised it would only be used to go after >250k.

The problem is the dishonesty, saying the intent is one thing but being unwilling to codify the stated intent.

>>throwa+uu
in order for going after everyone (or whatever arbitrary number we choose) it needs to be economically feasible. it is simple math and should be explained in simple math terms. it cost on average X amount to “go after someone” - if that amount exceeds what potential benefit is based of course on earning then we do it. otherwise it makes no sense. except we make this a political issue (as everything else). any sane person running IRS would do the math and figure out what the number is where it makes sense to go after someone

>>bdangu+Rx
Getting one persons taxes is not why you enforce, any more than why the police enforce other kinds of laws that don't have anything to do with bill collecting.