UK Online Safety Laws - I, and therefore the site, are at risk

[Jon]

With the new UK online safety laws, I am both responsible and at legal and financial risk for members posts. For as long as I could, I let the discussion flow freely on this site. However, for self protection my policy has to change. When I (or the moderation team) see posts that are too close to the edge, we will delete them. When threads are getting too heated, we will close them, and perhaps also hide them.

The alternative is for me to either close the site to avoid personal liability, or wait until I get prosecuted, which will also result in site closure.

If you dislike this policy we can always put you personally at legal and financial risk because all they require is one named person who is responsible for everyones posts. Any volunteers?

 

[cheekybuddha]

When I (or the moderation team) see posts that are too close to the edge, we will delete them. When threads are getting too heated, we will close them, and perhaps also hide them.

But who moderates the moderators?

It's a shitty state of affairs, Jon. I signed some petitions against this legislation when they were trying to shovel it through, trying to highlight the collateral damage to smaller sites without resources to implement the required vigilance; but, of course, someone must think of the children.

Effin' idiots.

I have blocked the Watercooler and Politics boards because I come here to help out with programming problems, and not to read a firehose of bigoted bile. But just because I don't always agree with or want to see that stuff, I'm still fully in favour that folks should be able to express what they think.

Sorry it's come to this because it will probably reduce AWF's traffic even further.

 

[cheekybuddha]

I think you're over reacting and if you curb freedom of speech based on biased moderators opinions, you will most certainly reduce AWF's traffic.

But it's not your house and family on the line, is it?

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

MOVE to the USA Jon!!

Well, This is Utterly EMBARRASSING ​

 

[The_Doc_Man]

But who moderates the moderators?

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?" That question has been around since the 1st or 2nd century, asked by the Roman poet Juvenal.

The answer specifically for AWF is that when someone reports improper behavior, the first duty of action is on the moderators who look at the "Reports" entries. The second line of defense is Jon.

I can tell you categorically, none of the moderators want to be censors. But when members complain about posts, whether from other members or moderators, we HAVE to look into it, at least until someone in England finally realizes that this viewpoint is not supportable long-term. Uncle G's post here makes it clear. The act in question suffers from overreach. Particularly if someone uses a VPN for a connection of questionable propriety, there will be limited ways to enforce anything.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

A video clip inside the video shows Kier Starmer stating that we have free speech in the UK ---- I find it difficult to believe that Kier Starmer is a complete idiot --- and from what he does and tries to do --- I believe he thinks he has good intentions ---- but he's a bit like the democratic party in the USA in that everything he says and does is a complete disaster !!! I also understand he is a lawyer which would indicate that he has a reasonable level of education and a reasonably high IQ but something doesn't add up !!!

 

[cheekybuddha]

Knowledge of the law should be obtained so that you don't shut down free speech out of fear. At least, do it with actual knowledge.

This is perfect theory.

But the reality is that, even if Jon is charged with a case that is spurious, he has to come up with the legal costs to defend and fight it, which are unlikely to be recovered even if he won.

That is the problem with this legislation. It's not really about 'complainers' - the sentiments behind it are probably well intentioned - but companies like meta and Xitter (the real targets of the legislation) have the resources to handle any charges against then. But small community boards run by individuals or volunteers are caught up in the dragnet with disproportionately huge potential consequences

 

[cheekybuddha]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

I'm glad you got it, Doc!

 

[cheekybuddha]

So then what's the solution?

1. See post #1

2. Wait however many years until the government of the day realises how totally unworkable this legislation is and how it will not have any effect against its intended targets, yet completely harms unintended targets.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Why is it that only the people who have lost the argument complain

Human nature, I would hazard to guess. But here is a counter question: Why do people gloat when they think they have WON the argument - whether they have or not?

 

[cheekybuddha]

You would think by now the UK agency that monitors compliance with that new Law would've sent an automated warning to AWF's webmaster.

 

[cheekybuddha]

I suggest providing disclaimers via email to people who request membership prior to onboarding them

Not quite sure why you're being such a drama merchant.

Just behave on the boards like a half-way decent human being and everyone will be fine.

If you step over wherever the arbitrary line is, the mods will take care of it.

It's annoying, but them's the cards that have been dealt.

 

[cheekybuddha]

Just who decides what conversation is acceptable. You? Me?

Not me. You. You're the mod.

Guess you have to evaluate everything in terms of whether Jon might end up bankrupt now.

I reckon everyone has a fair idea of where the line might be - now they will have to think harder about how close they want to sail.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Personally, I am in favor of returning California

I'm not sure that the original owners would want it unless the current tenants cleaned it up a bit.

 

[moke123]

If you step over wherever the arbitrary line is, the mods will take care of it.

I would think there are several affirmative defenses to any violations of the OSA. One really important one would be that a moderator staff is in place and proactive. The biggest problem with that defense is that it is often the moderators deeply involved in the potentially offensive threads.

 

[DickyP]

As far as I can see we have very good moderators who are conscientious (and proactive) but the site does have one problem: the mix of UK and US members and the misunderstandings possibly engendered. A relatively trivial example was when Pat got hot under the collar about the use of the word 'dear', which totally and utterly baffled UK users. This was not anything that would have fallen foul of the new law, but shows the potential for problems. Mods just please go on doing you best and I'm sure we'll be OK.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Funny, those threads are only offensive to people who want to censor speech. Guess you're not a first amendment kinda guy.

Some of them live where the 1st amendment has no legal standing because of different legal context. This IS, after all, not a USA forum. We have members from Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, South America, and North America. That's from six of the seven continents. (If we actually DO have an Antarctic member, can you please identify yourself?) We have Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Atheists. I am not sure whether we have Buddhists or Shinto members. I don't recognize anyone who follows Santeria or other Caribbean religions and I'm not enough familiar with African religions to list them. But "1st Amendment" references only confuse most of those folks because they are not in a position to know what it means.

Think ecumenical, Pat! You're on the World stage now.

 

[DickyP]

We use the word "dear" loosely also. And we even do use to insult the target. You failed to understand the context in which it was used. Colin was not even remotely being nice.

Explains my point exactly - to me his usage in the case in point had no hint of nastiness (I went back and reread it). We remain at misunderstanding each other. Granted his post was not necessarily pleasant but the use of 'dear' wasn't special.

To quote Winston Churchill - 'two countries divided by a common language'. And I'm absolutely sure we'll have non meetings of minds again.

 

[Jon]

Just who decides what conversation is acceptable.

Me, because I decide how much risk I want to take.

 

[Jon]

Guess you have to evaluate everything in terms of whether Jon might end up bankrupt now.

If we can't control it, I will close down all the non-Access areas. And I will also be noting the actions of those posters who do not have consideration for my own legal risk. For those who do not care, they are not my friend.