zlacker

"The Act applies to services even if the companies providing them are outside the UK should they have links to the UK. This includes if the service has a significant number of UK users"

>>dutchb+(OP)
>"...This includes if the service has a significant number of UK users".

"[A] significant number"? How Britishly vague.

There was one person involved in the doompf of that ceo guy....

I would say that a significant-sized football crowd would be over 75,000.

That's a lot of numbers that 'significant', has to lean on.

>>Ylpert+W1
> The subsection headed ‘User numbers’ (which begins at paragraph 5.7) explains when a service is to be treated as having more than a particular number of monthly active United Kingdom users for those measures which apply in relation to services of a certain size, and how to calculate the number of monthly active United Kingdom users. The definition of ‘large service’ is included in the definitions section in Section 5 of this document.

That section details how to calculate the figures, because they're relevant for sections like CSAM scanning

> Services that are at high risk of imagebased CSAM and (a) have more than 700,000 monthly active United Kingdom users or (b) are file-storage and file-sharing services.

>>dutchb+(OP)
This is gonna sound crazy, but you can potentially just ignore unjust laws in countries like the UK if you don't live there. At your own risk of course, but that is the nature of protest. If OP divests completely then it should be out of his hands.

>>soulof+Sm
The OP does live in the UK. It would be insane to uproot their life just to keep a forum alive, while still having to deal with potential headaches related to it.

>>latexr+6V
Yes, my suggestion to OP was to pass it off to a non-UK steward.