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

[ColinEssex]

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

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

 

[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'.

 

[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??

 

[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?

 

[NauticalGent]

How does one "Not See" a moderator?

Something tells me she would be well in front of the pack

 

[cheekybuddha]

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

QED

Maybe here?

View attachment 121917

Try it for any mod!

The ignore button isn't there. You can't ignore mods.

 

[NauticalGent]

Don't be a smart***. It doesn't become you.

Au contraire, I've been told more than a few times it's one of my finest traits...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Is there a button for ignoring loose cannons?

Last I checked, that wasn't one of the possible forum member designations, and I don't think we have a member of that name.

I can't tell you whether a moderator can be blocked, but there is a certain disadvantage here in that moderators can see every post, blocked or not.

 

[ColinEssex]

He gets all quivery inside when I make a typo.

Sorry to deflate your inflated ego love, but you don't even register as an itch.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

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

The problem, Col, is that under the Online Safety Act, definitions of what is or is not a personal attack have been altered. Pat objected to your use of the word (you KNOW which one it was) and, since your running feud is dear to your heart, you used it a second time. That second use in your reply could be construed as "harassment" and YOU need to realize that your "barbs" that you so casually throw could be misinterpreted.

You can accuse me of taking all the fun out of things, but I didn't pass the Online Safety Act. I'm just here helping Jon.

 

[Jon]

Someone here has now reported this site to Ofcom regarding the Online Safety Act. This likely means that I will have to close the Politics section. The knock-on effect is that the site is therefore at serious risk of becoming financially unsustainable, since the advertising revenue from that busy portion of the site helped keep us afloat.