I've just read
OfCom's allegedly helpful page for small site owners and I have to say I can't say I blame rab for his decision. Both onerous and vague at the same time.
That said, some friends of mine have been promising, re the OSA, that we'd see a huge wave of site closures off the back of it, and I have to say that not many so far have been publicised. Perhaps, like this one, they're going uncounted or unreported, but it is interesting that a lot of services have apparently decided to make a go of it.
Things like this remind me of other legislation that was meant to curtail exploitation or cavalier profiteering by "the big guys" but which do get applied to small voluntary efforts with chilling effects on certain activities. Examples from the past would be copyright, child performance licensing, minimum wage (especially when volunteer roles become overly regimented and start to fall into the scope of employment), disclosure and barring (not because it's a bad idea but because in practice large backlogs occur) and various bits of health and safety. This seems to be the latest example in that it's understandable why the legislation exists even when it has dumb effects in the wrong places. A lot of people have been harmed by the way social media are misused by some, and you have to have some sort of enforcement backstop to that when people can operate anonymously and therefore beyond the reach of enforcement against them as individuals. Conversely, the anon internet has had significant social benefits for people whose interests, personalities or way-of-seeing-the-world fall outside the mainstream, because we're less likely to make satisfactory social connections in our immediate geographic community. But do people like that
need anonymity? Not always, but I can think of several scenarios where it helps, especially given that online bullying, and harrassment that crosses over into the real world, are among the real harms I mentioned above. Interesting times.