Avatar
⊥ᵒᵚ Cᵸᵎᶺᵋᶫ∸ᵒᵘ ☑️
b3df2569e9cc987052a39c395ed4a68c15799523b3006e4e11e1819e0872fd6a
Lead dev at UK company for ☁️,📱 & 💻. Views own. Got an AI degree before it was a bubble. Likes : 🐕, 🧱, 🐧,🚀, sci-fi, whisky, electronic 🎶 and retro 🖥️ Dislikes : Long bios He/him
Replying to Avatar Michael

nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqx7wx77xs5qtj2kvp37wq40e2hpykdka4alc0xf0euqmv5hvp9nzs3m7u35 fwiw and on your last point: there’s an exemption in the act for email services.

But I wholly agree with your point. It’s ridiculous that you need a lawyer to comply with this!

nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqpq2m743ytcvz7n3ytksrw0ctprf3jtmtdnaewaz0qxsu6z4c2u6sjtuafq what about email with a web interface ? what about ... ?

It's *astounding* #OFCOM don't already have canned answers for common sceneries, a month before they can start fining and harassing people.

#onlineSafetyAct

I think I figured out what is so annoying about #onlineSafetyAct - #ofcom has written all its' docs assuming you are complicated bespoke service with dedicated staff to do "legal stuff". There's no pre-done, "just you use this" for perfectly standard, ordinary, foreseeable cases.

We shouldn't be arguing about "is every spammer who emails me porn a 'user' of my email service".

#uk