Hacker News Reader

Comment by twinkjock | Hacker News Reader

That is not the stated purpose of the law and there is recourse built into it. Too often folks view these laws as binaries where none exists.

View on HN

It's never the stated purpose of the law, but we might do well to be concerned with what it actually does rather than what the proponents claim it would do.

Recourse doesn't matter for a sole proprietorship. If they have to engage with a lawyer whatsoever, the site is dead or blocked because they don't have the resources for that.

I’d encourage you to read the actual text of the law and not just others’ interpretation. The sole proprietorship likely falls into one of the exception clauses or is likely using a platform.

I feel like you're not understanding; people aren't going to read the law, because the law is non-trivial and they don't feel comfortable doing that themselves instead of hiring a lawyer. But they can't afford to hire a lawyer, so instead they're going to block.

What recourse? A small, 5o-member community doesn't have the resources to ensure they're in compliance, and Ofcom's statement about how smaller players are "unlikely" to be affected is not particularly reassuring.

The "stated purpose" is irrelevant. Even if they are being honest about their stated purpose (questionable), the only thing that matters is how it ends up playing out in reality.

Read the actual text of the law. It creates opportunities to appeal and other options. Another option is for these communities to band together, which seems to be happening.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com