The Open Rights Group is working on an amendment to the OSA which would propose a small site exemption, for sites that are maintained without a view to profit, with a small number of active users, and which the owner reasonably believes to pose no risk to users.
If you want to give thoughts on various parts of the potential amendments, there's a form here:
https://cloud.openrightsgroup.org/nextcloud/apps/forms/s/dQB6GSRQ4jHzGjxiYG5tAnDB
By choosing a size, you're agreeing that the act is good to apply. How can you argue that? Whose side are you on?
A tactical protest vote would be to choose 100k up while you work at overturning the whole thing.
Y'all are deciding which size shackles and chains will be acceptable to apply.
The safety act itself is bullshit.
Don't comply in advance.
WTF.
I've stated this on the form, but the idea of "having to tell Ofcom" anything is a bit dangerous - sounds like every interactive website would have to register centrally just to exist! That's a significant further escalation from where we are now.
It should be passive, as with the current OSA - you do an assessment which can be made available on request (at least that's my understanding of it)
I agree - my preference is definitely not for a notification/registration obligation - but I know that other people have different views on this, particularly if it might enable a broader range of sites to escape more onerous obligations.
Adamantly against that idea.
My views (and I know others have slightly different views):
> Who does measure the ammount of (active) users?
The site operator.
> Do I have to transmit my user-statisitcs to a "small sites office"
No. (But I know people have different views on essentially "registration"; I am not in favour.)
> how do they trust my claim of having < 1000 users?
My proposal is that Ofcom would have the ability to bring a site into scope, irrespective of number of users, if Ofcom could evidence actual harm (although the definition of "harm" is still unclear).
Maybe the Perfect really is the Enemy of the Good, so this isn't the one
Would an LGBTQ fedi instance where people are allowed to "horny post" publicly be allowed to "reasonably believe" there is no risk? Or would Ofcomm decide different?
If there's one chance to amend this nonsense in parliment that's going to draw as much public support as possible for a giant push, I'm worried if this is the play
We tried that argument. It didn't work. I wrote to my MP with that argument. I complained to Ofcom about their "proportionality" not satisfying those cases. Nothing worked.
We should be working to undermine and destroy it, not to make it slightly more palatable to some of us.
@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk The same small sites that likely cant afford to get sued anyways?
This ‘exemption’ just seems to feed into the surveillance narrative of “protecting the kids” which is bs
I actually made a post about this but this actually backs up my guesses, if the amendment does get through.
Feels like you could cover 90% of small sites with much lower numbers, and have a slightly better chance of not being summarily rejected.
And how size is measured. Number of page hits? Number of registered users? Number of logins?
The "size" of the site is irrelevant to the risk of online harm being DISPLAYED, but very relevant to the risk of online harm being VIEWED. I'm not completely clear which of these risks the OSA is trying to reduce. Ofcom deliberately avoids defining risk, leaving it up to service owners to guess.
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
