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

[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.

 

[BlueSpruce]

Me thinks the simplest solution is to remove all direct messaging and non-tech forums. It's impossible to examine all past posts and messages to decide which ones violated the thought police rules. Moderators will still have their hands full with the tech forums, as nothing prevents anyone from posting anything on them. This should keep Jon safe, AWF alive, and above all, bring peace.

 

[BlueSpruce]

QED

Try it for any mod!

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

Is there a button for ignoring loose cannons?

 

[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.

 

[NauticalGent]

Sorry state of affairs. Maybe Tony's frivolous suggestion to move it her to the US isnt as ridiculous as it sounds.

Or maybe go back to the site suppoolrters concept...the better the membership, the less ads you see.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

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.

Darn! Give us as much warning as you can if things go really bad, Jon.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Maybe Tony's frivolous suggestion

me? make a frivolous suggestions? ----

 

[NauticalGent]

me? make a frivolous suggestions? ----

I know, right. What was I thinking...

However,

Would that even be possible? I guess the .co.uk bit on the URL would have to go away, but would it be possible to move all content history to another site?

 

[Edgar_]

I know, right. What was I thinking...

However,

Would that even be possible? I guess the .co.uk bit on the URL would have to go away, but would it be possible to move all content history to another site?

According to a basic whois search, the servers are already in the US, but Jon could probably make the .co.uk domain point to a .com or whatever else