zlacker

>>ANewbu+(OP)
Some may think that harm doesn't matter, but perhaps actual fines are unjustified without the presence of actual harm.

And yes, perhaps the rules should be followed regardless of what they are, but perhaps the government bureaucracy is such that it's just too hard to change rules.

I'm one to think that the UK is generally overregulated, excessively obsessed with safety, and the regulation ethos is inconsistently applied. The government and civil service are also incompetent to the extreme. There also isn't a culture of accountability in government.

I also think that regulation is often simply used as a revenue generation measure, which is not what it is supposed to be about.

Perhaps a good middle ground is for a company that is at threat of investigation is simply asked to leave the UK or pay a fine.

>>m101+oI2
And perhaps, we should look at this from the PoV of the user and not defend the "company" (which has the advantage in all cases).

Screaming "bureaucracy" and "overregulation" for every single attempt at limiting the impact of corporations is just silly.

>>isodev+JJ2
Yes, so from the point of view of the user was there evidence of actual harm?

>>m101+CM2
Well yes - so many young people in the UK have been radicalised. Was it the fault of Imgur, I don't know, probably not. Is the Online Safety Act going to solve it? Probably not.

But my comment was that, in general, it's not up to Imgur, Google, Meta, Apple, etc. to have an opinion on this or any other country's policy because it's just not fair. 1 corporation should not have more say or sway than 1 citizen vote. And that ideally includes their ability to "lobby" and buy themselves regulations (like the recent AI law in California which practically doesn't do anything).