It'd be interesting to see how fast the policy would get reversed then.
This was always a stupid policy and so protesting it by pulling services is one way to draw attention to that.
the first clue is that its the ICO that is running this. the ICO has nothing to do with the online safety act.
Secondly asking a commercial company to conform to basic data protection isn't that onerous.
Honestly its almost like HN has tumbler level reading comprehension.
Microsoft + Google + Amazon + Nvidia + Meta + Apple = $630 billion in annual operating income.
They'll react to a change in capital investment faster than anything else.
Wow I didn't know big tech invested so much in the UK!
They aren't making $630 billion per year in money off of those companies, but the operating income means they're getting taxes on that $630 billion (income tax from company and employees, VAT for purchases, etc.) and the personnel working in the UK are probably spending most of that money in the UK (velocity of money theory comes into play here).
The resulting economic benefit for the UK government is enough that they'd notice the drop if all that started to transition away.
Didn't something like that happen about 15 years ago maybe due to net neutrality? Or maybe it was wikipedia's black outs over SOPA.
Damage to stock value would be the bigger blocker (from both sides of the pond).
Might kickstart some actual competition though, as that happening would create a large hole to fill.
Anything else is just an observation and isn't neccesarily true at all.
But I'm curious about how far you feel that assertion goes. Ignoring what the GPDR says exactly, how do you feel about the various examples?
I have http request logs from requests that you've made. Do I have to delete them when you ask?
You sent me an email, do I have to delete my copy?
I host an email service for me and a friend exclusively, you request that I delete your data, do I have to delete emails you sent to him as well?
You answered a long thread about an esoteric computing question, hypothetically under the name denvercoder9, do I have to delete that comment? What about the replies to it which quote you?
I have evidence that you committed a crime of some sort, do I have to delete that?
Someone else posted true information about you to my site intended to categorize comments to HN posts. It's someone else data about you, do I have to delete that when you ask?
What if the information is actually false?
Where should the line be drawn, and why?
Oh what's that, you actually just want to control other people's data?
Common law has the concept of reasonableness.
If you're a single person hosting a simple website, having logs is perfectly reasonable thing to have to check for fraud and other nefarious things.
> You sent me an email, do I have to delete my copy?
Depends who hosts the email server, and is it commercial. Buisnesses need a purpose for holding onto emails, its not reasonable for a non business single person to have one.
> You answered a long thread about an esoteric computing question, hypothetically under the name denvercoder9, do I have to delete that comment? What about the replies to it which quote you?
Thats actually interesting, the only thing that PII is the name, so if the name is deleted thats complying.
> I have evidence that you committed a crime of some sort, do I have to delete that?
There is a specific carve out for criminality.
> The only real information about me is data I produced myself.
Thats copyright law, which is whole 'nother kettle of fish. Its also one I don't know that well
One, the thing you "generate" ie typed out by hand, rather than got a machine to make, is copyright.
Data about you is GDPR
> Oh what's that, you actually just want to control other people's data?
sounds like a projection...