> but if your hobby is a website where others can post content you have a responsibility that the content shouldn't be illegal or harmful to others
I’m not entirely sure I agree with this sentiment. It certainly isn’t true from a legal standpoint in America, where section 230 explicitly absolves you from any such responsibility. I also don’t think most of the objections to the OSA center around a need to remove child pornography, but instead the fact that you are forced to employ technological measures that don’t currently exist to remove child pornography. All of this is a little besides the point though because…
> If you can't deal with those responsibilities you can't run the website.
I absolutely can. If the law is unreasonable, I can block all users from the host country, and keep running my website. Which is exactly what Lobsters and a lot of other people are choosing to do.
I’m not entirely sure I agree with this sentiment. It certainly isn’t true from a legal standpoint in America, where section 230 explicitly absolves you from any such responsibility. I also don’t think most of the objections to the OSA center around a need to remove child pornography, but instead the fact that you are forced to employ technological measures that don’t currently exist to remove child pornography. All of this is a little besides the point though because…
> If you can't deal with those responsibilities you can't run the website.
I absolutely can. If the law is unreasonable, I can block all users from the host country, and keep running my website. Which is exactly what Lobsters and a lot of other people are choosing to do.