It’s not a tax burden because it’s not any kind of tax. It’s a cost of doing business, like the cost of keeping and filing accounts. Imposing an additional cost on services which are by-and-large ad-funded/freemium does not have nearly the same effects as funding something out of the treasury.
All of this, by the way, is because an investment trust and thinktank (yes, a lovely little conflict of interest) called Carnegie United Kingdom Trust pretty much wrote the OSA for the government. As an investment trust, they invest money in things, but being private, they don’t need to tell Joe Public what they invest in, nor to the Investees need to tell us. So basically, they invested in YOTI or some others like it, and are making money from it because so many sites are forced to have it to work in the UK.
Can you link more information about this conflict of interest? I can’t find anything about it.
That’s pretty fascinating that they used the staged expansion of Craigslist to allow confounding factors to be accounted for.
Nobody is “just blaming” any one thing except in your head. The headline says “helped fuel” not “single-handedly caused.”
Maybe you’ve been affected by a related trend - that of not reading properly and just replying with whatever half-baked idea was already bouncing around?
I am software engineer, and the coding LLM we have is absolutely capable of doing a bunch of tasks you’d give to a new grad.
Yeah this quote stood out like a sore thumb.
I have read absolutely nothing on any supposed legal basis for this, either.
The requirement to file accounts is not a tax. Call things what they are, not whatever you’ve decided they’re similar to in your mind. To do is either confusing or dishonest, depending on whether people ultimately see through what you’re doing or not.
Opposition to this on the basis of finances requires you to actually have some idea of the fiscal outcome. If the number of British children who end up bypassing the rules and viewing genuinely harmful material is small then it will result in lower costs from children traumatised, mentally ill or killing themselves.
I oppose the act because of incalculable costs to privacy, not because it might mean Facebook has to display 10 more ads to someone to maintain their profit margins.