> UK's Online Safety Act 2023 would require us to do a prohibitively complicated risk assessment for our service. We're talking reading through thousands of pages of legal guidelines.
> We're a volunteer operation and would likely be held responsible as individuals. There is talk of fines up to 18 million GBP which would ruin any single one of us, should they get creative about how to actually enforce this.
> Our impression is that this law is deliberately vague, deliberately drastic in its enforcement provisions, and specifically aimed against websites of all sizes, including hobby projects. In other words, this seems to us to be largely indistinguishable from an attempt to basically break the internet for all UK citizens.
> If we could afford to just hope for the best, we'd love to.
The way I understand this is that it's not feasible for them to assess how the legislation impacts them, so they would rather stay safe than risk having their lives destroyed.
For what it's worth I salute anyone blocking, whether through an excess of caution or just as a middle finger.
actually, it would ruin all of them collectively should "they" get creative enforcing it.
Would you pay their legal fees if they are sued? It's easy to say when you don't have your future on the line.
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/09/12/wikimedia-fo...
I'd say the right answer is to move/add a content addressed model/system for obtaining sources.
Isn't that almost what the nix file already is while being legal. Having a cache of all build files is not legal to do.
Having a content hash as (part of) the address is common way to this.
IPFS multihash is a well-known example. As opposed to HTTP.
https://github.com/magnet-linux/magnet-linux
Not really ready for prime time, but I think I have some interesting ideas there at least.
A distributed git object cache is what is really needed at the moment.
> After this, I know I will think twice about visiting the UK
Reallllyyy? Over a bit of porn blocking? Do we not think maybe this is just for show? What do they imagine is going to happen at the border -- their iPhone gets frisked for Page Three nudes?
More to the point, are they banning Texas? Indiana? Oklahoma? Georgia? North Dakota? France?
Or are they just hyperventilating about the latest thing from Britain? Perhaps they think unless Tommy Robinson saves us no-one can.
You've apparently not crossed international borders that often.
> just hyperventilating about the latest thing from Britain?
They've simply decided doing business with the UK is no longer worth the risk. This is no more "hyperventilating" than the people who passed this law in the first place, who are "hyperventilating" over pornography sites when there's no evidence they're a significant social problem.
Essentially, you have to preform risk assessment if your site contains any child inappropriate content (according to new law that is defined kind of vague ), you have to age verify all the visitors from UK or risk getting fines.
Since service allows for user upload, this means that their site could protentional qualify. And even if it does not, you need a lawyer to go through everything, to make sure you don't. Sure the chances their site get targeted is small, but not zero.
I suspect this law isn’t popular. Just the messaging of doing nothing is more unpopular. So it gets spun as this is popular.
https://yougov.co.uk/technology/articles/52693-how-have-brit...
If you asked them would they support the law if it happens to accidentally block useful sites that have ZERO pornography on them, I'm very sure, the results would be very different.
Which is my point. The OSA isn’t popular as a broad piece of legislation, but the “think of the children” aspect that something needs to be done to restrict access to pornography is popular.
Watch the YouTube link I sent to better understand my point.
Personally, I think even the pornography aspect is stupid. If the government couldn’t stop me accessing porn when I was a kid back before the web was invented, then they’re shit out of luck stopping kids these days. The problem isn’t the law, the problem is parents want a way to diminish their own responsibility. It’s the same tired bullshit we see time and time again of blaming everyone else rather than making ourselves accountable.
The internet is full of dishonest "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."
That’s some incredible logic.
Remember that previous status quo was "I'd rather make money off of child abuse, because nobody is stopping us". This is the end result of self-regulation, so show me something better.
I don’t have a better solution. But I don’t need to accept a detrimental “solution” needs to be implemented. Nor am I obligated to find the better solution.
I like an idea I first saw in Debian's general resolution process: all votes have a "further discussion" option, and often a "retain the status quo" option, and the voting system lets people use them effectively.
In the UK parliament (as in many contexts) a vote against something could mean that the person doesn't think there's a problem to be fixed, or it could mean that they don't think this is the right fix -- and that could be because it's too extreme or because it's not extreme enough. That's supposed to be addressed by the committee stages, or by amendments, but it's really hard to divine actual preference from a series of yes/no votes.
The internet is also full of bad takes like "the ends justify the means" and "the solution to this problem is obvious and no one has done it because they're evil/stupid/lazy".
As opposed to the original suggestion that doesn't actually address the problem? How is proposing that in the first place more honest than calling it out?
As for other countries, the EU just delayed the vote for "Chat Control" as recently as yesterday!
instead, the Court contorted themselves into holding that adults have accessing content obscene to minors without furnishing their ID isn't protected speech. porn still is protected speech, but proving your age isn't protected speech. as a result, the law is content-neutral, not content-based.. somehow.
it was a low point for the Court - clear activist justices legislating morality from the bench.
The real answer is to repeal this nonsense (IMHO as a non-UK citizen)
It as always a stupid idea, see recent discord leak of ID’s.