Does The Online Safety Act Threaten the Future of This and Other Football Messagboards?

[Terry Cochrane]

Sunderland's reckons yes.


https://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/t ... h.1646227/

[Vegas Claret]

When Elon falls into line I'll start to worry, until then not so much.

[groove]

This is quite concerning.

[andyh]

I find this terribly worrying. It is dressed up as safety but in reality it means putting information access solely in the hands of the rich. It is getting harder and harder to find unbiased or first hand reporting. Everything ends up in the rich person’s disinformation grinder. A world where Musk, Farage and Trump and the like have a platform that is denied to the common man.

[Father Jack]

Is anyone on here legal savvy enough to know if there will be any exemption for message boards like ours?
The Sunlerland site and first post on it’s thread don’t read well.
or tech savvy enough to know what we can do if this board is also forced to shut down?

[Steve1956]

Is anyone on here legal savvy enough to know if there will be any exemption for message boards like ours?
The Sunlerland site and first post on it’s thread don’t read well.
or tech savvy enough to know what we can do if this board is also forced to shut down?

We have Pushpinpussy...everything will be fine we'll be OK while all the rest are doomed.....don't worry.

[fidelcastro]

We have Pushpinpussy...everything will be fine we'll be OK while all the rest are doomed.....don't worry.

He'll be on it from his villa in Spain.

[Steve1956]

He'll be on it from his villa in Spain.

[claretonthecoast1882]

He'll be on it from his villa in Spain.

I hear Costa del Bacup is slightly warmer than here so he will probably be too busy in Wetherspain's to help

[fidelcastro]

I hear Costa del Bacup is slightly warmer than here so he will probably be too busy in Wetherspain's to help

Busy fat shaming presumably.

[Poulton-le-Claret]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -explainer

[Vegas Claret]

Not sure how they can enforce this if the website is based abroad ? If it had a lithuanian web address as an example then what can they do ?

[Row x]

It looks like this forum is included, but there could be exemptions listed somewhere

The Act’s duties apply to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other. This includes a range of websites, apps and other services, including social media services, consumer file cloud storage and sharing sites, video sharing platforms, online forums, dating services, and online instant messaging services.

The Act applies to services even if the companies providing them are outside the UK should they have links to the UK. This includes if the service has a significant number of UK users, if the UK is a target market or it is capable of being accessed by UK users and there is a material risk of significant harm to such users.

[GetIntoEm]

This board is really well moderated, but i think it'll fall foul like suggested on the sunderland page.

its a all out attack on free speech and to control and moderate what people have access to, the cover ups we have recently seen in Southport is a testament to this.

New Dawn.

[Row x]

This board is really well moderated, but i think it'll fall foul like suggested on the sunderland page.

its a all out attack on free speech and to control and moderate what people have access to, the cover ups we have recently seen in Southport is a testament to this.

New Dawn.

It might even be over moderated compared to other sites, which you'd think would be a good thing for the bill
However the extras it asks for might make it impossible for sites like this to continue.
Every user has to be told why a post has been removed
There must be an appeal system
Age restrictions have to be enforced

[Hipper]

Most Laws are reasonably written from my limited knowledge. They are applied by courts with consideration of what the law writers intended.

I would imagine that how the law relates to particular services will get promulgated (!) to the relevant organisations that run these services.

The intentions of this law are good and I see no reason to panic as if you look at the link that Poulton-le-Claret posted it's about quite extreme material and behaviour which I haven't seen on here. The biggest issue here I would guess will be the age restrictions, if any, that might need to be applied.

[aggi]

Yes.

It was a bad piece of legislation when it was introduced last year and still is.

This is a good guide to what a board like this would need to do to comply with it:
https://russ.garrett.co.uk/2024/12/17/o ... act-guide/

But, even if you set aside the possibility of fines which can be avoided with a bit of admin around setting up a company, there is the risk of criminal liability for the people running the board.

At the moment there are no exemptions for boards such as this, regardless of size.

The stupid consequence of this is it is going to drive people from smaller forums such as this to larger, more problematic media like Facebook and Twitter.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Unfortunately the ways UK laws are passed and policed now seems to mean free speech is a thing of the past and thought crime is even becoming a thing. George Orwell now reads as a documentary not a fictional warning.

So, yes, I would be concerned, both for football forums and for society in general.

It isn’t just the online act either - there was the discussion a few months ago about pubs having to monitor and stop their customers from causing offence to others.

[dsr]

Most Laws are reasonably written from my limited knowledge. They are applied by courts with consideration of what the law writers intended.

I would imagine that how the law relates to particular services will get promulgated (!) to the relevant organisations that run these services.

The intentions of this law are good and I see no reason to panic as if you look at the link that Poulton-le-Claret posted it's about quite extreme material and behaviour which I haven't seen on here. The biggest issue here I would guess will be the age restrictions, if any, that might need to be applied.

According to that cycling site, Ofcom estimates that the smallest of message boards will need to pay between £6,000 and £14,000 to set up the systems, plus running costs thereafter. And this is government diktat - governments are not known for turning a blind eye to organisations that don't do the paperwork properly.

[RMutt]

This will be a massive increase of work for Ofcom, even if they only deal with issues brought to them and don’t actively go looking for problems.
The regulators don’t seem to be particularly effective as it is. Look at Ofwat today for example.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Just to add to what I wrote above in a general sense…

I’ve just skimmed Aggi’s link and what that does is reinforce in my mind a decision I had already made.

I’m in the process of setting up a new business and am rewriting my current business website and that one. I was going to have a user engagement feature where users can comment on relevant things relating to the business, but now I have decided that is too much hassle so I have binned the idea.

The layers of bureaucracy and risk seem too great.

[dsr]

Yes.

It was a bad piece of legislation when it was introduced last year and still is.

This is a good guide to what a board like this would need to do to comply with it:
https://russ.garrett.co.uk/2024/12/17/o ... act-guide/

But, even if you set aside the possibility of fines which can be avoided with a bit of admin around setting up a company, there is the risk of criminal liability for the people running the board.

At the moment there are no exemptions for boards such as this, regardless of size.

The stupid consequence of this is it is going to drive people from smaller forums such as this to larger, more problematic media like Facebook and Twitter.

Reading that guide, it sounds like the first approach from Ofcom is to say that you must fix something. If at that point you shut down your site, you should get away with it. (Unless of course someone has provided a porn link without you knowing it.) Some small organisations may choose to create a risk assessment marked low all across the board and carry on with fingers crossed expecting that no-one's going to know or care. I once did that with the data protection rules, being treasurer of a small charity and never notifying the government that I kept a list of subscribers and their donations on my computer. But it's a rotten law that relies on it not being enforced if normal life is to continue unchecked.

[distortiondave]

Does this also apply to paid platforms? I presume it does but couldn't see it anywhere.
e.g, if we had to subscribe to UTC for £1 a year or something does that change what this website is, from a messageboard to a subscription service or business or something?

[NottsClaret]

The stupid consequence of this is it is going to drive people from smaller forums such as this to larger, more problematic media like Facebook and Twitter.

I know we're just idiots chatting nonsense about football on here, but places such as these are one of the few remaining genuine 'social' media spaces.

Facebook, Twitter and the like stopped being that a while ago. You used to get people (real people) chatting and discussing topics but it's just a cynical business of paid AI generated spam pushing whatever agenda and almost no interaction anymore.

[AlargeClaret]

I find this terribly worrying. It is dressed up as safety but in reality it means putting information access solely in the hands of the rich. It is getting harder and harder to find unbiased or first hand reporting. Everything ends up in the rich person’s disinformation grinder. A world where Musk, Farage and Trump and the like have a platform that is denied to the common man.

You’re fully aware that the US media machine is generally an extremely liberal one ? While you have the rather silly Fox network , their news outlets and certainly their press hardly exude “ right wing thuggery “

[AlargeClaret]

I know we're just idiots chatting nonsense about football on here, but places such as these are one of the few remaining genuine 'social' media spaces.

Facebook, Twitter and the like stopped being that a while ago. You used to get people (real people) chatting and discussing topics but it's just a cynical business of paid AI generated spam pushing whatever agenda and almost no interaction anymore.

You’re 100% correct and it’s become painful to behold , however this is ultimately what keeps these places free.

[pureclaret]

This board is really well moderated, but i think it'll fall foul like suggested on the sunderland page.

its a all out attack on free speech and to control and moderate what people have access to, the cover ups we have recently seen in Southport is a testament to this.

New Dawn.

Not to sure what the cover up was in Southport,
I dont see that there is any attack of freedom of speech, only that there is a part of having that freedom that comes with consequences , I don't believe that that has changed much in the last 100 yrs or more.
With regards to what we can have access to then there should be systems in place for at least age appropriate and things that are illegal as in how to kill some one , how to build a bomb etc

[dsr]

Not to sure what the cover up was in Southport,
I dont see that there is any attack of freedom of speech, only that there is a part of having that freedom that comes with consequences , I don't believe that that has changed much in the last 100 yrs or more.
With regards to what we can have access to then there should be systems in place for at least age appropriate and things that are illegal as in how to kill some one , how to build a bomb etc

There are already systems in place for that. I'm sure that if you start posting instructions on how to build a bomb, it will be removed and you will be banned under the current system. The problem is that the new law is ignoring all proportionality and making sites pay fortunes to deal with tiny risks.

We might as well say that there need to be systems in place to stop houses being used as cannabis factories. Perhaps all houses should be obliged to have cannabis detectors fitted and paid inspectors should come round every 6 months to ensure it doesn't happen. How much would you be willing to pay to ensure that your house isn't used as a cannabis factory? Or would you prefer to rely on the systems you already have in place?

[distortiondave]

Not to sure what the cover up was in Southport,
I dont see that there is any attack of freedom of speech, only that there is a part of having that freedom that comes with consequences , I don't believe that that has changed much in the last 100 yrs or more.
With regards to what we can have access to then there should be systems in place for at least age appropriate and things that are illegal as in how to kill some one , how to build a bomb etc

That all happens anyway.
Under the current rules, if I say 'I'm going to kill pureclaret' then the post gets removed, I probably banned, and may even be reported to the police depending on how seriously the whole thing was taken and in what context.
Under the new rules, the post gets removed, I get banned, I get reported to the police, Claret Tony gets fined £18,000,000 and this website gets shut down.
How is CT or a moderator supposed to Risk Assess a user threatening to kill someone, or randomly posting a bad link or image, before its happened?

It seems to me that it's going to be so easy to maliciously misuse this new ruling to shut down forums like this.

[Row x]

That all happens anyway.
Under the current rules, if I say 'I'm going to kill pureclaret' then the post gets removed, I probably banned, and may even be reported to the police depending on how seriously the whole thing was taken and in what context.
Under the new rules, the post gets removed, I get banned, I get reported to the police, Claret Tony gets fined £18,000,000 and this website gets shut down.
How is CT or a moderator supposed to Risk Assess a user threatening to kill someone, or randomly posting a bad link or image, before its happened?

It seems to me that it's going to be so easy to maliciously misuse this new ruling to shut down forums like this.

Who do you get reported to the police as, if you've registered with false details? Who's going to check all credentials?

[Rowls]

Who do you get reported to the police as, if you've registered with false details? Who's going to check all credentials?

All of your details, IP address(es), email addresses etc will be reported to the police.

[Row x]

All of your details, IP address(es), email addresses etc will be reported to the police.

The advice nowadays is to use throw away email addresses to sign up to websites and use vpn....so reporting those would be pointless

[Rowls]

Glad to see this finally getting some of the scrutiny and debate it deserves.

[Rowls]

The advice nowadays is to use throw away email addresses to sign up to websites and use vpn....so reporting those would be pointless

I'm reminded of when an England player was subjected to torrents of racial abuse online and it turned out most of the people posting the abuse were actually abroad.

Yes, there's big limtations as to what can be achieved nationally when the internet had no borders. But what's your wider point?

[dibraidio]

Have read quite a lot of that documentation it appears to relate to content. It doesn't apply to comments which is odd, how do you apply that to a forum? Is the original post "content" and then rest "comments"? My gut feeling is that due to the brilliant moderation on this site we already remove offensive "content" and have the complaints process covered, we just need to document what we do and submit the assessment. Since the beginning we've been treading a fine line between functionality on this site and keeping out spam and other malicious content.

If we are deemed to have breached the rules we can remove the offensive material quickly but thanks to the many posters who report these things to the moderators I reckon it would be gone before a complaint was processed anyway.

The only people who'll be impacted by this is are me and Tony. I'm going to have to work with him to document what the moderators do. I'm the one that will need to do the assessment and pay any fines should they arise. I'm counting on everyone to make sure that we never get to that point. I also want to re-iterate my thanks to all of the people who have helped to moderate this board through the years to keep us on the right side of the law and as a place where we can have respectful discussions even with those who hold different views to our own.

[Row x]

I'm reminded of when an England player was subjected to torrents of racial abuse online and it turned out most of the people posting the abuse were actually abroad.

Yes, there's big limtations as to what can be achieved nationally when the internet had no borders. But what's your wider point?

That is impossible for the owners of such sites to police them as the bill intends

[Rowls]

Thank you BTW to dibradio and ClaretTony (and anybody else who has contributed) for the work they do on this site.

The moderating is normally extremely good. I've disagreed with them once or twice but it's often a thankless task for them.

Hopefully scrutiny of this act will enable people to see the problems and unintended consequences that arise in attempting to police and sanction speech and thought.

It's fine to disagree with people and no, you don't have any right not to feel offended.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Dibradio’s comment above was clear, concise, respectful and helpful. I for one have a much better understanding now.

So thanks for that, and for the wider hard work.

[aggi]

Have read quite a lot of that documentation it appears to relate to content. It doesn't apply to comments which is odd, how do you apply that to a forum? Is the original post "content" and then rest "comments"? My gut feeling is that due to the brilliant moderation on this site we already remove offensive "content" and have the complaints process covered, we just need to document what we do and submit the assessment. Since the beginning we've been treading a fine line between functionality on this site and keeping out spam and other malicious content.

If we are deemed to have breached the rules we can remove the offensive material quickly but thanks to the many posters who report these things to the moderators I reckon it would be gone before a complaint was processed anyway.

The only people who'll be impacted by this is are me and Tony. I'm going to have to work with him to document what the moderators do. I'm the one that will need to do the assessment and pay any fines should they arise. I'm counting on everyone to make sure that we never get to that point. I also want to re-iterate my thanks to all of the people who have helped to moderate this board through the years to keep us on the right side of the law and as a place where we can have respectful discussions even with those who hold different views to our own.

The "comments" stuff is, so far as I can tell, where you can only respond to an initial post or topic posted by the site and can't interact with other comments. Reviews on a product or comments on a news article for instance.

As you say, the big risk is for yourself and Tony. The risk is probably negligible but not non-zero.

I know that Velocio who runs the cycling forum (coincidentally I know them online and have met them a few times) is concerned about the act being weaponised by disgruntled people who have been banned. That forum has had multiple DDoS attacks over the years and was even sued by the BNP at one point.

[Plissken]

As someone who also runs a forum, there is nothing to be worried about. It's a bit like the scare stories over GDPR.

The requirement is to basically "have and follow processes to remove illegal stuff". CT would possibly have to write it down in an email and send it to the other moderators but that's pretty much it. In one line: "Folks: If you see something that you think is illegal, or has been flagged as illegal, please remove it as soon as possible."*

The definition of "illegal stuff" is also pretty clear and obvious apart from one thing - "inciting violence". We can all see the obvious incitements to violence, but the greyest area is stuff like...

cover-up in Southport

which has been used by the Far Right as a way of inciting violence against Muslims.

And given that the phrase has been used repeatedly by people like Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson, then I'm confident that a defence of "well, those two people know exactly where the law stands on inciting violence, and are experts in walking right up to but not over it" is enough of a defence for Ofcom.


* I will happily send you an invoice for this legal wording.

[aggi]

As someone who also runs a forum, there is nothing to be worried about. It's a bit like the scare stories over GDPR.

The requirement is to basically "have and follow processes to remove illegal stuff". CT would possibly have to write it down in an email and send it to the other moderators but that's pretty much it. In one line: "Folks: If you see something that you think is illegal, or has been flagged as illegal, please remove it as soon as possible."*

The definition of "illegal stuff" is also pretty clear and obvious apart from one thing - "inciting violence". We can all see the obvious incitements to violence, but the greyest area is stuff like...



which has been used by the Far Right as a way of inciting violence against Muslims.

And given that the phrase has been used repeatedly by people like Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson, then I'm confident that a defence of "well, those two people know exactly where the law stands on inciting violence, and are experts in walking right up to but not over it" is enough of a defence for Ofcom.


* I will happily send you an invoice for this legal wording.

I'm not sure if Tommy Robinson would be my defence, isn't he currently in jail?

[groove]

Who do you get reported to the police as, if you've registered with false details? Who's going to check all credentials?

Age verification measures will be used, under the guise of preventing children from accessing the site. This would be done by uploading your ID (passport, Driving licence etc).

[Plissken]

No it won’t.

[Plissken]

That is impossible for the owners of such sites to police them as the bill intends

You are not getting it.

It is fine for owners to be reactive to people posting illegal material. Exactly as it is now. There is no requirement to be proactive.

It is not surprising that a lot of the scare stories about this originated (on the wider internet, not here) from people who are known trolls and bad actors who have a history of abusing people and forums online.

[Plissken]

I know that Velocio who runs the cycling forum (coincidentally I know them online and have met them a few times) is concerned about the act being weaponised by disgruntled people who have been banned. That forum has had multiple DDoS attacks over the years and was even sued by the BNP at one point.

I have been on the receiving end of one of these malicious complaints, full on “supply me with all personal data you hold on me with a view to suing you” type stuff.

He was probably surprised that it was a nine line CSV file with his username, email address with the account last IP address used, signup time, last login time and number of posts and that was it.

Not as surprised as he was likely to be after I signed off with “and until you emailed me asking for this, I didn’t ever know your real name, you dipstick.”

[Row x]

I have been on the receiving end of one of these malicious complaints, full on “supply me with all personal data you hold on me with a view to suing you” type stuff.

He was probably surprised that it was a nine line CSV file with his username, email address with the account last IP address used, signup time, last login time and number of posts and that was it.

Not as surprised as he was likely to be after I signed off with “and until you emailed me asking for this, I didn’t ever know your real name, you dipstick.”

How do you know it was his real name?

[Plissken]

Because he was too thick to think about hiding it.

[Row x]

Because he was too thick to think about hiding it.

Was he though?
I could send you 5 emails, different addresses, different names, how would you know which was was real, if in any?

[Plissken]

Because you severely overestimate the ability of the sort of person who will react to be banned for trolling by demanding their PII under their “rights”.