UK Online Safety Laws - I, and therefore the site, are at risk (6 Viewers)

[Pat Hartman]

I never reported a complaint about anyone's post in that "Attack on Israel" thread. I am perfectly capable of debating without bullying anyone, and still stand firmly behind what I posted in that thread.

And that thread was shut down for a reason. It is inappropriate to continue the conversation here where no one will engage with you.

 

[BlueSpruce]

Do you really think they would not first warn a site owner to remedy the situation before moving forward with legal proceedings?
How do you know if an AWF member is underage, or an undercover UK agent?
I suggest providing disclaimers via email to people who request membership prior to onboarding them, display the disclaimers on the home landing page, and have them electronically sign after reading the rules and policies of this site. Otherwise, their membership could be restricted to certain forums, or other remedies.

 

[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.

 

[Pat Hartman]

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

Therein lies the problem. Just who decides what conversation is acceptable. You? Me? There would be totally different opinions and that is just between the two of us. If we add more people, NOTHING gets past the censors. But, that does seem to be what you are aiming for.

 

[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.

 

[BlueSpruce]

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.

So what exactly is the "arbitrary line", and what is done with moderators who do not set a good example for others? I'm not being a drama merchant nor misbehaving. On the contrary, I am providing suggestions on how AWF can stay out of trouble without going overboard on curbing freedom of speech. When UA folded, I found it real easy to join AWF, and all it's content is searchable on the web.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Jon could simply shut down all non-technical forums. Would that work for you? There are certainly other places to have "discussions". But this is a good place because people are generally civil and that doesn't happen out on non-technical social media sites. Although we've actually had a couple of converts (people changing sides), cognitive dissonance has pretty much put a halt on conversions. The more entrenched you are in a non-defensible position the less likely you are to give up and agree to study history to better understand the issues.

I think anyone who thinks Israel should give back Gaza, Samaria, and Judea should explain why the US should not return Puerto Rico to Spain, California, Arizona, New Mexico to Mexico, Guam to Japan, and several islands in the Caribbean to GB who all lost wars to us. Apparently only if you are Israel are you required to give back the spoils of war. Even then Gaza, Samaria, and Judea would not be "free" since they were formerly stolen by Egypt and Jordan They would never go to the "Palestinians".

Personally, I am in favor of returning California

 

[BlueSpruce]

I think anyone who thinks Israel should give back Gaza, Samaria, and Judea should explain why the US should not return Puerto Rico, California, Arizona, New Mexico to Mexico, Guam to Japan, and several islands in the Caribbean to GB who all lost wars to us. Apparently only if you are Israel are you required to give back the spoils of war. Even then Gaza, Samaria, and Judea would not be "free" since they were formerly stolen by Egypt and Jordan They would never go to the "Palestinians".

Personally, I am in favor of returning California

You see? There you go again. You just can't help yourself and let go of it! I thought we were not going to further discuss the Israel/Palestinian issue, especially in this thread. I can't believe you being a moderator are perpetuating that debate here and now, after I stated about 20 posts prior to that thread being frozen that I said everything I wanted to say, stand by my opinions, and bailed out, but you seem to thrive on continuing the chaos. You should tender your resignation as moderator. I move for a vote of no confidence in you as a moderator, and that you be removed from that position.

 

[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.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Pat got hot under the collar about the use of the word 'dear', which totally and utterly baffled UK users.

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.

potentially offensive threads.

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

 

[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.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Some of them live where the 1st amendment has no legal standing

Moke and I are almost neighbors so he knows the first amendment well

Granted his post was not necessarily pleasant but the use of 'dear' wasn't special.

Given the context, "dear" was intended as an insult. So, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[BlueSpruce]

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.

The UK started a dangerous precedent in the "free world". I can anticipate many countries creating thought police machines.

 

[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.

 

[Jon]

Given the context, "dear" was intended as an insult. So, we will have to agree to disagree.

I am from the UK. "Dear"can be used as a patronising insult. It is context dependent, and between foes it is highly likely to be considered an insult, whilst hiding behind deniable plausibility. Only the poster can be 100% sure of the intent behind the word.

How do you avoid the insult? Don't engage, despite provocation.

 

[Jon]

I have just received an adsense policy violation warning from Google today regarding this page:

Trump Administration Predictions

Don't his own people pretty much loathe him? Just like Americans are taught by the media to loathe Trump? No matter how you disguise it, is still Crime Against Humanity. Then why do you criticize Israel? They are not the ones committing ethnic cleansing. Their constitution doesn't say "kill...

www.access-programmers.co.uk

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