UK Online Safety Laws - I, and therefore the site, are at risk (4 Viewers)

[ColinEssex]

Given the context, "dear" was intended as an insult.

Sorry dear, you're wrong again, as usual.
Col

 

[BlueSpruce]

Consequently, I have to delete all potentially offending posts on that page. If adsense goes, the site closes.

When I was a teenager I remember seeing signs in several eateries and pubs that said "No political or religious discussions allowed in this establishment". There was and still is a good reason for it. Sooner or later those discussions escalate into insults and fights. So for those reasons, I am all in favor of you closing all non-technical forums. This way you eliminate the risks and stress associated with having to constantly monitor the threads and the moderators.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Just incase Jon has to pull the plug suddenly.

Thanks for the memories AWF, peace out. ✌

 

[Pat Hartman]

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

So, you've taken up the position of being the thought police. In your shoes, I would not lower myself to do that. I would shut down all the non-technical forums -including the water cooler AND force everyone to declare their age somehow or be banned from the forum entirely. The non-technical forums have nothing to do with Access and so are not necessary to the goals of the forum. There is no reason for them to be here. The people who come for the technical conversations won't care so only the trolls who don't make technical contributions would be adversely affected.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Why do people gloat when they think they have WON the argument - whether they have or not?

Probably has to do with the blindness caused by cognitive dissonance. If the other person's argument is "wrong", then you must be "right". Declare victory and move on

 

[The_Doc_Man]

So, you've taken up the position of being the thought police. I

Pat, Google's AdSense is the thought police. Jon merely got the notice and has to act in self-defense.

While there are parts of the Bible I don't consider useful, there are parts that give really great advice. Like...

Matt. 7:3-5 - "Why do you look at the speck of dust in your brother's eye, but fail to notice the log in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is a log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first remove the log from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Sometimes, the "let things be" pillow is the proper place for some arguments.

The worst part of this is that so often, you are right - but continued escalation ruins the argument and leads to marginal language that eventually triggers AdSense.

 

[Edgar_]

Much of the Watercooler content is straight up TruthSocial material. Access users shouldn't really have to deal with that kind of conversation when they're trying to find answers. Meanwhile, Watercooler-only users would fit right in on platforms like TruthSocial or Twitter/X. There's probably a reason that forum was created, but it clearly serves no purpose anymore. Jon should probably shut down that subforum or geoblock it entirely.

 

[DHookom]

Much of the Watercooler content is straight up TruthSocial material. Access users shouldn't really have to deal with that kind of conversation when they're trying to find answers. Meanwhile, Watercooler-only users would fit right in on platforms like TruthSocial or Twitter/X. There's probably a reason that forum was created, but it clearly serves no purpose anymore. Jon should probably shut down that subforum or geoblock it entirely.

I monitor Watched Forums only which does not include any non-Access forum. I checked out Watercooler but it was toxic.

 

[Edgar_]

Come to think of it, The Watercooler seems to be a contention board, and that toxicity has clearly taken its toll.

 

[Jon]

I monitor Watched Forums only which does not include any non-Access forum. I checked out Watercooler but it was toxic.

Are you aware of the facility to hide all the forum sections you are not interest in? I'm asking because some members don't know about that feature. The plugin for that was kindly donated by a forum member who wishes to stay anonymous.

 

[DHookom]

Are you aware of the facility to hide all the forum sections you are not interest in? I'm asking because some members don't know about that feature. The plugin for that was kindly donated by a forum member who wishes to stay anonymous.

Thanks, Jon. I wasn’t aware but I’m good with the “Watched Forums”.

 

[Isaac]

I have thoroughly reviewed UK's Online Safety Act and didn't see anything mentioned about heated debates that don't contain any hate speech. If you really want to minimize the possibility of violating the Safety Act, then eliminate the social/political forums and make AWF strictly a tech site.

the problem, Blue Ridge, is that the from the safety act's perspective (and David's, probably), anyone who disapproves of certain things is "bigoted bile" and "hate speech". Anyone who thinks some of the newly popularized movements are actuall damaging and dangerous to society is "bigoted bile". so as much as you might not think it's hate speech, there are those who do - and they must be pacified, at the cost of personal liability to Jon

 

[Isaac]

I reckon everyone has a fair idea of where the line might be

We do, unfortunately. Anyone who might not agree with or approve of the latest liberal nonsense is considered 'bigoted bile'.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Pat, Google's AdSense is the thought police.

The two conversations were separate in time. Jon had not posted the complaint from AdSense when I asked the question or I had just not seen it.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Access users shouldn't really have to deal with that kind of conversation when they're trying to find answers.

Why would they be looking at the WaterCooler or ANY other forum if they are looking for Access answers? I don't expect you to even understand the concept of America's First Amendment so there is no point in discussing it with you. I object to much of what goes on in X which is why I don't go there. I don't insist they should be shut down because I don't approve. That is where we differ. You believe in shutting down discussion you disagree with.

and they must be pacified, at the cost of personal liability to Jon

Then if Jon is afraid of the blowback, he can remove all forums that do not deal with technical topics.

Goggle has pretty much screwed AWF anyway and our technical posts no longer get noticed the way they used to. If certain forums can be blocked from the search engines, that would be a great way to allow them to stay. Then anyone who complains can be instructed on how to not "see" stuff or people they disagree with so they won't be offended by ideas that don't align with their personal opinions.

 

[ColinEssex]

Goggle has pretty much screwed AWF anyway

I'm not familiar with 'goggle' my dear. Could you explain please? A new website perhaps?
Col

 

[NauticalGent]

I'm not familiar with 'goggle' my dear. Could you explain please? A new website perhaps?
Col

Nothing gets past you, does it??

 

[Pat Hartman]

He gets all quivery inside when I make a typo.

 

[Edgar_]

@Pat Hartman
Because the Watercooler belongs to this Access forum. Access is not politics, it's software.

 

[moke123]

Then anyone who complains can be instructed on how to not "see" stuff or people they disagree with so they won't be offended by ideas that don't align with their personal opinions.

How does one "Not See" a moderator?