What agenda do you think the OP is following, and why do you think they'd do so now after their long (~3 decades!) history of running forums? There has been many other pieces of legislation in that time, why now?
I tried to think of an agenda, but I'm struggling to come up with one. I think OP just doesn't want to be sued over a vague piece of legislation, even if it was a battle they could win (after a long fight). Just like they said right there in the post.
It's kind of rude to imply that this is performative when they gave a pretty reasonable explanation.
[flagged]
What agenda do you think the OP is following, and why do you think they'd do so now after their long (~3 decades!) history of running forums? There has been many other pieces of legislation in that time, why now?
I tried to think of an agenda, but I'm struggling to come up with one. I think OP just doesn't want to be sued over a vague piece of legislation, even if it was a battle they could win (after a long fight). Just like they said right there in the post.
It's kind of rude to imply that this is performative when they gave a pretty reasonable explanation.
> or is pretending to feel for some agenda
Assume good faith.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The actual rules are vulnerable to this attack. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50
If you think the attack won't be attempted, you've never been responsible for an internet forum.
Can you explain what you mean by "this attack"?
They'll submit a complaint to the regulator that you've not done a risk assessment?
I've tried submitting issues to the ICO before but didn't have enough for them to go on and so the other company was never contacted.
3 replies →