• Oh... they thought of me in the impact assessment document that tries to quantify the impact if the law were brought in as-is:


    240.Under the preferred option, some individuals (who own an online platform) might be in scope of the new regulation if they meet all of the criteria.

    I am and we do.

    If this were the case, these individuals would incur the same costs as any business in scope.

    Meaning I am under the same burden as Facebook and Twitter.

    However, given the low risk functionality exemption, the vast majority (if not all) individuals are likely to be out of scope.

    Erm, hello?

    This is to futureproof the regulations as technologies develop which lower the bar to entry; and to prevent a loophole under which bad actors could make individuals (rather than companies) the service provider to evade regulation.

    That bit wasn't relevant to anything but it did distract you from the bit before.

    The government does not have any evidence of individuals who could be in scope of the regulation

    HELLO 👋

    and given the proportionate and risk-based design of the regime, these are expected to be extremely rare and any costs minimal.

    But you just said I have the same costs as businesses covered, and I am impacted 🤷♀️

  • So are you saying it's OK then?

    Cos I've read this paragraph three times so far and still not sure I understand it.

  • No. That paragraph is the impact assessment. And unlike the other parts where they spell out the impact and cost to individuals and conclude the service would shutter. With section 240 this shows the impact of their preferred option... But actually they don't spell out the impact they just change their argument to be that whatever the cost it's worth it, and that they know of no example of an individual who may be impacted... Effectively hand waving the impact away. But the impact remains.


Avatar for Fox @Fox started