zlacker

Personally, I think it's bonkers that an individual can't run an online forum.

>>baggy_+(OP)
I agree but that ship sailed a decade ago. There's no additional risk with the new bill, it's more of the same. If there are concerns about liability because of this new bill then there should be concerns about liability already.

I sympathise with the OP because at some point everyone becomes too old to deal with the headaches of running a community. I have no opposition to their choice to shut down the forum. I just don't believe liability as a result of the new bill is the reason.

>>aimazo+b1
but there is additional risk and liability, because the new act creates more work in order to be compliant (which is what increases the liability), and it increases the risk of being attacked.

there's never been an instance of any of the proclaimed things that this act protects [...] people from, so he should be safe, right?

but despite this, he is already being attacked, and those attacks will not just continue but they are likely to increase because the attack surface has become larger.

>>aimazo+b1
> I just don't believe liability as a result of the new bill is the reason.

It seems like OP is commenting on this thread; you can accuse them of lying directly, if you'd like.

>>baggy_+(OP)
Personally, I think it's bonkers that you think "I don't have time to comply with the law so I shouldn't have to" is a reasonable position.

>>jodrel+jW
People who think this law is reasonable are bonkers.

>>baggy_+K21
People who go for reductio ad ad-hom are making low quality internet arguments.

Restauranteurs can't say they don't have time to comply with the law. Construction companies can't. Doctors can't. Why should online service providers be able to?