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
The US tax code is over 2.5k pages, with an additional 10k pages of regulations. And I manage to file my taxes fine every year without having read all that because most of it doesn't apply to me. Following the GDPR is easy if you aren't trying to maximize tracking with minimal concessions to the law.

>>pavon+kp1
Most of this comes down to "Use your brain" and if you try to get around it with an Um Actually, they have the specific page to counter it. You need a legal team when you want to ride as close as physically possible to violating the law without crossing the line.