Should I store data about users and be responsible for their actions if they accept an agreement during registration that they are not people?

Question

Social media

- All information on the site is closed.
- Access is possible only after registration, as well as the ability to create user-generated content.
- When registering, the user accepts the offer that he is not a person.
The question is, do I have any responsibility for the actions of users, as the owner of the site?
After all, logically, this offer does not work, because. cannot be done in principle. But on the other hand, if it is proved that it was the person who went to the site and gave his consent, then this is either a hoax or immediately non-fulfillment of the terms of the agreement. I don't know how to interpret this from a legal point of view.
Further, this person can leave personal data about himself, but I, as the owner of the site, find myself in a situation of deception, thinking that the user is not a person, which means that he cannot be an individual, which means that he cannot be a subject of personal data. So it turns out that I 1) can store any data without the consent of the user 2) I can NOT store any data (immediately delete) that telecom operators are required to store, etc.
And now, let's say something illegal appears on the site. For example, the method of suicide. I repeat that the site is closed, you can read it only after registration, so a comrade major or an employee of the RKN will be required to register, i.e. to accept an offer that is not a person ... in general, it looks rather strange. If this happens, then how legitimate is it then to say that there is some information on my site? May I, in case of emergency, say that any evidence of the existence of such information is false, since the witnesses (people) did not have the right to register?
Formally, there should be zero people on the site at all, i.e. literally no human users. None of the citizens will read what is written there. Well, maybe there will be bots, or aliens, this is a separate topic of discussion. Thus, the site does not distribute information at all. No way. Is it a weighty argument in resolving legal disputes?

Answer 1

A stupid offer will not save you, then if your lawyer clings to it, any court will recognize it as void

Answer 2

Firstly, this case is not the one when "a minus times a minus gives a plus." Because in order to recognize a site as "distributing prohibited information," it does not matter at all what the offer is during registration. The fact that the user violated something while gaining access to information does not relieve you of liability. If you give an analogy like "poison in a closed cupboard that the thief drank", then it will be incorrect, because in your case the "cabinet" is exposed to the street, the "keys" to it hang on its handle, and everything that separates the curious from contents - a note "do not take", while the cabinet is glass, and the poison is in a vodka bottle. People who did this in reality, leaving methanol for country thieves, received a term for murder by negligence, at least.
Second, even if it were important, it would be too easy to prove your intent to create a patently impracticable offer.
Thirdly, you don't seem to get your idea of ​​post-Soviet law enforcement from anywhere other than foreign films, where cases are won by word-of-mouth and literal interpretation of the law (because the court is not a state repressive body).

Answer 3

With all due respect to you, but...
- stop smoking such weed weed :) because you are trying to create a legal incident so as not to be responsible for storing user data / not requiring registration / something else.
- registration on the site will be an exclusively formal obstacle - or do you intend to require a notarized scan of your passport? Here I have a group in VKontakte. About cartoon girls with big... eyes :) On the screen saver, it says "18+" in big letters. The group is, of course, closed. But when I receive an application for membership, I either look at the age in the profile (if indicated) or write a message and definitely believe the answer. Although they can deceive me here and there :) So you haven’t heard about fake profiles, right? :)
- the court will not care about your offers and so on, because the legislation does not introduce the concept of "non-human".
- why do you think that certain rules of the game will be followed with you? This is the main mistake of IT people - for some reason they believe that the state, communicating with them, will adhere to certain rules and believe that if they find a way to deceive these rules, they can bypass the state. Nothing like that. When the state discovers such garbage, it simply changes the rules :) If it needs it, of course.

Answer 4

dollar , if you are responsible for the actions of users, then not because of the existence of an agreement with them, but because of the imputation of this responsibility by law.
So there is no need to complicate things.