Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Ofcom is an independent regulator; it's far from the "first-party" you're implying it is.



Ofcom really isn't actually independent on Online Safety in any way.

It has to obey instructions on prioritisation from the secretary of state and has no real operational flexibility.

As with much of the (dire) UK legislation here, the government saying something is true until it is blue in the face does not make it true.


The Online Safety Act provides for Ofcom to develop its own codes of practice and guidelines based on the provisions of the act and public consultation (including with the platforms). It has an enormous amount of leeway in deciding how to implement the Act.

Ofcom has operational independence. Neither its investigations nor its enforcement actions are directly controlled by the Government. The Government does approve Codes of Practice but if it doesn't approve, it can only request modifications. It's still up to Ofcom to decide how to interpret and implement. Secretary of State interventions are, by convention, rare and subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.


I love how this got downvoted. I literally consulted on the draft legislation.


This is a press release, though. Whether or not Ofcom is independent, their press release writers are not independent, they are part of Ofcom's PR team, a team that absolutely exists.


there is no quango in the UK that is independent, they are all, without exception "independent" with an implied nudge and a wink.


The Q in Quango stands for Quasi.


Right, so calling it "3rd party" would be a stretch, but it's definitely not "1st party". I think "2nd party" would be a fair compromise.


JFC. You probably think the BBC is impartial.


Everyone knows the BBC is biased against their side.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: