On: Austrian government seeks to eliminate internet an...

[ptaipale]

So, will a site maintainer simply remove the older accounts that have not accessed the site in a while, to keep number of accounts below 100 000?

[superwayne → ptaipale]

Interestingly, the current draft of the bill says that the site owner has to delete accounts which were inactive for a year.

[stdclass → ptaipale]

I wonder what will happen if somebody motivates a lot of people to register on a site, to push them over the threshold.

It may also be possible to split your forums to different sites / domains if you reach the thresold.

Anyhow I can't see how this will play out in real life and I hope our president will step in and prevent it from happening at all.

[jeena → stdclass]

So distributed social media communities like Mastodon will not have the problem?

[stdclass → jeena]

I guess not, since there is no single entity/company which holds 100.000 users.

But I am 100% sure, our current government would never ever grasp the concept of a federated social network and probably just try to ban it.

[larkeith → stdclass]

I imagine sensible website operators would limit signups to below the threshold, so they don't run the risk of legislation unexpectedly applying. Otherwise it also becomes an avenue for malicious actors.

[buro9 → ptaipale]

I run a lot of websites, and this is exactly what I would do.

I'd probably keep the content but orphan it and kill the underlying user and profile.

[groestl → ptaipale]

If it works out, and there's no public outcry, they'll just reduce the limit to 10k after a while.

[the_mitsuhiko → ptaipale]

It’s completely unclear and ridiculous. There are some people on wikipedia atm that try to figure out how wikipedia could possibly comply and what it means: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Liberaler_Humanist/...

[ovi256 → ptaipale]

Depends if the law says currently registered users or historically registered users.