We don’t need to trust what they say, we just need to engage in a little critical thinking. What’s the benefit for Ofcom in pursuing tiny websites? There’s no political benefit, no financial benefit… the guidance from Ofcom reaffirms the natural conclusion.
All of those things are buttons to click and ship with every piece of forum software from the last decade. No forum can survive without moderation because of spam so these tools and policies will already be in place on every website with user generated content.
Some people are protesting against this law by threatening to shut down their websites or by deleting content. The founder of lfgss explicitly said they’re against the law on principle.
I think historic content is very valuable which is why I am offended by this absurd response on hacker news where people are conflating the actions of a protest with the consequence of a law.
If someone chooses to protest this law by deleting their website then more power to them but we must be honest about what it is: protest.
People should be considerate about the consequence of the services they release onto the internet. We can debate the specifics of whether certain requirements are reasonable/fair/beneficial but it’s patently absurd to label choices these website owners are making as being caused by this law. The law has zero to do with historic content, there’s not a single risk to anyone who leaves a website online in read only mode as an archive.
You’re falling for the big numbers that do not stand up to scrutiny. There’s no such forum shutting down. Are you referring to lfgss? First, it’s not shutting down, second, the user numbers are completely wrong. As is the claim that the platform supports over 300 forums. You’re an order of magnitude off. Go and visit it and look at the activity, it’s clinging to life. 275k active users? Pure fiction.
The law has absolutely nothing to do with historic content, it has no provisions for or relevance to content published decades ago. Even in the most cautious response to this law, there is no reason to take content offline.
The forum has had less than 100k posts in the last 10 years.
Forums and small websites have been killed off by changing consumer behaviour, the shift to big social media platforms. Using big numbers to suggest that the UK Online Safety Act is responsible for killing off these smaller independent websites is disingenuous.
If you do the same exercise for the other forums, you’ll find they’re all long dead too.
Reality: the forum has negative 358 posts in the last month. The forum has negative ~2k posts over the last 12 months. The forum is so inactive that they’re deleting posts faster than creating them. 8 people have created accounts in the last year.
obviously some government employees are not providing value for money to the people because that’s just what happens in big organizations (public or private). The point being made by critics of DOGE is not “there’s no waste in the government” it’s that the DOGE goal is to gut government services, whether they’re wasteful or not is immaterial.
I was wondering what happened to micro recently (loved the m3o domain). Sorry to hear it’s over. Have you written a post-mortem? I’d love to hear more about it — if you don’t feel too downbeat about it.
There has been new information since that blog post which has reaffirmed the "this is much ado about nothing" takes because Ofcom have said that they do not want to be a burden on smaller sites.
"We’ve heard concerns from some smaller services that the new rules will be too burdensome for them. Some of them believe they don’t have the resources to dedicate to assessing risk on their platforms, and to making sure they have measures in place to help them comply with the rules. As a result, some smaller services feel they might need to shut down completely.
So, we wanted to reassure those smaller services that this is unlikely to be the case."
You're right. Plus, the overreactions have been walked back or solved in some cases, e.g: LFGSS is going to continue on as a community ran effort which will comply with the risk assessment requirements. Most of the shutdowns are on long-dead forums that have been in need of an excuse to shutter. The number of active users impacted by these shutdowns probably doesn't break 100.
I am glad to see you renamed to forms from blocks :) I am not saying that your work is bad but even if your work is bad you can make money hand over fist so questions of "good" or "bad" are immaterial[1].
As a solo developer walking a well-worn path you're in a fortunate position. You can poach customers from competitors and differentiate based on customer's having direct engagement with you, the founder, and price, because you don't have expensive developers to pay.
Identify a single use-case that your software is good for today, and then spend some time identifying prospective customers based on companies using your competitors for that use-case, then reach out and undercut your competitors based on your values. A competitor's case study / customer stories page is the classic poachers first port of call.
Persistence will pay off. Most of your outreach will fail, most of your ideas will fall flat, most of what you think matters won't matter and most of what you think doesn't matter will matter. That's okay.
Anything can be made into a company. Can you make this into a company? Nobody really knows until you've tried, but the idea has potential and you have the necessary skills to pull it off so there's no reason it shouldn't be possible.
The biggest difference between developers who write software and founders of software companies is a focus on customers. If you're struggling to see a clear path forward, it's a sign that you are probably spending too much time writing code and not enough time thinking about / talking to customers. You'll know you're doing enough business things when you start to feel like you're letting the software slip.
[1] I think it's great but that would undercut my point that it doesn't matter
Travel can be as easy as you want it to be if you are willing to spend money and/or plan. Stay at hotels that are part of a hotel group (e.g: Marriott) and check-in will be seamless. Use airport transfers and someone will be waiting at the airport with a sign and take you straight to the hotel (any reputable hotel will arrange it for you at a fair price). Use a global e-sim that you can activate when your plane lands. The pain you're describing is a choice (a completely reasonable choice to make for many people, but a choice nonetheless).
I am no fan of the UK but "worst weather on the planet"? The UK's greatest fault is that it is mediocre, it is uninspired, it is neither good nor bad, it is a place with so much potential that realises so little of it.
If economic opportunity is your motivation then the U.S. is a much better place to be than the UK, but if you'd just like to live a normal life with healthcare and a house, the UK is a far better place to be than the U.S for most people. "Economic opportunity" as a motivator is itself a U.S. mindset.
Major YouTube channels are typically managed by multiple people through the channel management features and brand accounts. I don't think it's possible to even log in to the brand account (which has a generated email address like [email protected]) instead it can only be accessed through an authorized user's account (which are distinct from the channel, i.e: it's not the email address that would be surfaced by this attack). Granted, things have changed over the years, so there may be old channels lingering with Google account linked email addresses, but from what I can tell, all channels were converted a while back.
edit: My hunch is that the channels the OP's attack was able to target are not actual channels but rather YouTube users (who have a "channel" because that's how YouTube represents users): so "YouTube User" is the correct description of this attack, which is distinct from what you're thinking of as a channel.
I think this is a vast overestimation. The majority of people notice every payment they make every month, a Netflix subscription is a choice that they would not continue to make if they were not using Netflix. Those of us who can afford to pay Netflix whether we watch it or not are the minority of wealthy people. I think you would be surprised to learn how many normal people juggle different subscriptions by cancelling/subscribing each month.