zlacker

>>ANewbu+(OP)
I suppose this is a serious question - does this mean that in theory HN should ban UK users? Or is HN likely compliant with this law? It is hard to pierce through the Orwellian language in the article (does "safeguarding children’s personal information" mean retaining or deleting the data?).

>>roenxi+l4
It looks like this law (which is unrelated to the Online Safety Act) is concerned with children being subjected to ad-tech tracking and similar indiscriminate data harvesting, so a site like this which doesn't feel the need to share your habits with 2,541 partners is probably out of scope.

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/the-children-s-code-what-i...

>>jshear+07
I like how it's always "oh just safeguard people's data", oh "just" don't do anything bad with people's data.

Then you look up what the actual regulation says and it's hundreds of pages of pure legaleese (over 100 pages for GDPR, over 300 for Online Safety Act), that you'd need to hire a team of lawyers to parse and interpret to make sure you're not breaking any of the regulations therein.

>>thegri+Jv
> over 100 pages for GDPR

The first 33 pages are reasons why the law needs to exist. 23 pages are instructions for EU member countries and the EU itself.

The remaining legal text itself is spaced out more than any high school teacher would ever allow, and IMO it's also quite light on the legalese. Not enough that I'd feel confident to skip the legal department in my multinational, but it's far from the unreadable mess people make it out to be.

The OSA on the other hand... I'm glad I don't personally serve the UK.