Comment by InsomniacL
7 months ago
> It's insane that they never carved out any provisions for "non big-tech".
There's only 13 provisions that apply to sites with less than 7 million users (10% of the UK population).
7 of those are basically having an inbox where people can make a complaint and there is a process to deal with complaints.
1 is having a 'report' button for users.
2 say you will provide a 'terms of service'
1 says you will remove accounts if you think they're run by terrorists.
The OP is blowing this out of proportion.
You are obviously rewriting a lot of the law, and ignoring that the penalty seems to still be "up to 18 million pounds". So no, there is a deliberate bias against smaller sites.
> You are obviously rewriting a lot of the law
Feel free to address any specific points. Have you looked at the Ofcom guidance?
> penalty seems to still be "up to 18 million pounds".
Fines "up to" a certain amount allow flexibility in punishment, enabling courts to consider the specific circumstances of each case, such as the severity of the offence and the offender's financial situation. This discretion ensures that penalties are proportional and fair, avoiding undue hardship while still serving as a deterrent.
You cannot write in to legislation specific fines for every possible scenario, this is how the UK legislation works. Suggesting you need to shutdown a cycling forums because you don't have 18 million in the bank is ludicrous.
Mishandling personal data has a maximum fine of £18 million too, yet small/medium/large businesses still exists...
> So no, there is a deliberate bias against smaller sites.
I'm saying there is deliberate bias against smaller sites, smaller sites only have 13 minor provisions whereas larger ones have 30+.