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

[ColinEssex]

Someone here has now reported this site to Ofcom regarding the Online Safety Act.

So what idiot did that? And for what reason? Surely if one is being investigated then one should know what the charges are and who complained. Unless you know and are keeping that quiet.
Col

 

[DHookom]

The Watercooler and elements of this thread remind of an old Cherokee tale:

One evening, an elderly Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside each of us.

He said, “My son, the battle is between two ‘wolves’ inside us all. One is evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.

The other is good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.”

“The same fight is going on inside you—and inside every other person, too.”

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, “Which wolf wins?”

The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one that you feed.”

 

[moke123]

Except that a USA site if operated in the continental USA would presumably have USA protections regarding 1st Amendment rights. Uncle G posted a video to that effect.

I'm sure the UK law is similar to the US law wherein if you conduct a substantial portion of your business in the US you fall within US jurisdiction.

4Chan is a US site but the UK levied some big fines on it recently.

 

[GPGeorge]

Hosting location doesn't matter. I am a UK business. Also, unbelievably, Ofcom are going after an American company, with threats of daily fines.

This is true. I read an article a day or two ago. Ofcom are trying to control content on a US owned, US hosted site. I would use a different word than "control", but under the current climate, that might trigger another action.

Unbelievably, the UK Ofcom thinks that because someone in the UK can navigate to the site's URL, they have the right to dictate to that site what they can and can't say. And that is a very large organization with a legal budget to fight. What chance would a site like this have?

We live in a very scary time.

 

[GPGeorge]

I'm sure the UK law is similar to the US law wherein if you conduct a substantial portion of your business in the US you fall within US jurisdiction.

4Chan is a US site but the UK levied some big fines on it recently.

That's the one I mentioned.

 

[moke123]

The US will be no better if they repeal section 230 protections.

 

[cheekybuddha]

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.

Wow!

Can they do this anonymously? Do you get any idea of who reported it?

 

[BlueSpruce]

Wow!

Can they do this anonymously? Do you get any idea of who reported it?

Jon said "Someone here", as in AWF, or in the UK? Regardless of who it was, we're now in the spotlight, so what's next?

 

[moke123]

Wow!

Can they do this anonymously? Do you get any idea of who reported it?

I'm sure you can but I would gather that they tell Jon what the offending post is. Wouldn't be too hard to figure it out from there.

 

[Jason Lee Hayes]

For what it's worth this is what i had to do/consider

Make sure you have clear rules about acceptable content, including posts on religion, politics, hate speech, and harassment.
Include a clause that moderators are not liable for user-generated content.
If you don’t have these yet, draft them ASAP and make them visible to users.

Add a disclaimer:
Something like: "The views expressed by users are their own and do not reflect those of the forum moderators or administrators. Moderators act in good faith to enforce community guidelines.”

Moderate proactively:
Use filters or flagging systems to catch inflammatory or potentially illegal content.
Consider requiring pre-approval for posts in sensitive categories.

Legal Considerations (UK Context)
Section 230-style protections don’t apply in the UK, but:
Under UK law, you’re generally not liable for user-generated content if you act promptly to remove unlawful material once notified.
You can be held responsible if you knowingly allow illegal content to remain.

Defamation and hate speech laws:
Posts that incite hatred, threaten violence, or defame individuals can trigger legal issues.
You’re not expected to preempt every post, but you must act quickly when flagged.

Strategic Options
Create separate categories for sensitive topics with stricter moderation or opt-in access.
Use pseudonyms for moderators to reduce personal targeting.
Log all moderation actions to show good-faith efforts if challenged.

 

[BlueSpruce]

For what it's worth this is what i had to do/consider

Make sure you have clear rules about acceptable content, including posts on religion, politics, hate speech, and harassment.
Include a clause that moderators are not liable for user-generated content.
If you don’t have these yet, draft them ASAP and make them visible to users.

Add a disclaimer:
Something like: "The views expressed by users are their own and do not reflect those of the forum moderators or administrators. Moderators act in good faith to enforce community guidelines.”

Moderate proactively:
Use filters or flagging systems to catch inflammatory or potentially illegal content.
Consider requiring pre-approval for posts in sensitive categories.

Legal Considerations (UK Context)
Section 230-style protections don’t apply in the UK, but:
Under UK law, you’re generally not liable for user-generated content if you act promptly to remove unlawful material once notified.
You can be held responsible if you knowingly allow illegal content to remain.

Defamation and hate speech laws:
Posts that incite hatred, threaten violence, or defame individuals can trigger legal issues.
You’re not expected to preempt every post, but you must act quickly when flagged.

Strategic Options
Create separate categories for sensitive topics with stricter moderation or opt-in access.
Use pseudonyms for moderators to reduce personal targeting.
Log all moderation actions to show good-faith efforts if challenged.

I don't think any of the safeguards you suggest will stop them from pursuing site owners. That Law is relatively new and they're going to enforce it even if later on it's declared unconstitutional. As someone else recently posted, even if you win in court, you wouldn't be able to recoup legal costs.

 

[Jason Lee Hayes]

I don't think any of the safeguards you suggest will stop them from pursuing site owners. That Law is relatively new and they're going to enforce it even if later on it's declared unconstitutional. As someone else recently posted, even if you win in court, you wouldn't be able to recoup legal costs.

Youre right, technical safeguards and disclaimers can help reduce risk, but they don’t make you bulletproof. If someone is determined to pursue legal action, especially in the UK where intermediary protections are weaker than in the US, they can still target site owners or moderators.

So:

1. Incorporate as a legal entity
• If your forum is hosted under your personal name, you’re exposed.
• Forming a limited company (Ltd) creates a legal separation between you and the site. It’s not expensive, and it’s a strong shield.

2. Appoint moderators as volunteers or contractors
• Define their role clearly in writing.
• Include indemnity clauses: “Moderators act in good faith and are not personally liable for user content.”

3. Get indemnity insurance
• Look into media liability insurance or cyber liability insurance.
• These policies can cover legal costs if someone sues over defamation, copyright, or offensive content.

4. Use a third-party hosting provider with strong T&Cs
• Platforms like Discourse, Vanilla, or even Reddit-style clones often have built-in legal buffers.
• If you self-host, make sure your hosting provider doesn’t pass liability to you in their terms.

 

[BlueSpruce]

Youre right, technical safeguards and disclaimers can help reduce risk, but they don’t make you bulletproof. If someone is determined to pursue legal action, especially in the UK where intermediary protections are weaker than in the US, they can still target site owners or moderators.

So:

1. Incorporate as a legal entity
• If your forum is hosted under your personal name, you’re exposed.
• Forming a limited company (Ltd) creates a legal separation between you and the site. It’s not expensive, and it’s a strong shield.

2. Appoint moderators as volunteers or contractors
• Define their role clearly in writing.
• Include indemnity clauses: “Moderators act in good faith and are not personally liable for user content.”

3. Get indemnity insurance
• Look into media liability insurance or cyber liability insurance.
• These policies can cover legal costs if someone sues over defamation, copyright, or offensive content.

4. Use a third-party hosting provider with strong T&Cs
• Platforms like Discourse, Vanilla, or even Reddit-style clones often have built-in legal buffers.
• If you self-host, make sure your hosting provider doesn’t pass liability to you in their terms.

Incorporating definitely protects against personal liability. I would think Jon is already incorporated. The question is, is it financially feasible for Jon to do what you suggest given AWF's current situation?

 

[Jason Lee Hayes]

Incorporating definitely protects against personal liability. I would think Jon is already incorporated. The question is, is it financially feasible for Jon to do what you suggest given AWF's current situation?

The definitive answer to this lies with John, as he holds the necessary context.
From a risk management perspective, I would recommend discontinuing the Watercooler, which presents a higher exposure. For open-topic discussions, it would be more prudent to utilize alternative platforms that offer stronger safeguards and clearer moderation frameworks.
Let others take the risk that have deeper pockets...

 

[moke123]

2. Appoint moderators as volunteers or contractors
• Define their role clearly in writing.
• Include indemnity clauses: “Moderators act in good faith and are not personally liable for user content.”

Sorry to say, It would probably also be prudent to ban the moderators from participating in the threads as participation would negate their neutrality.

 

[Edgar_]

Incorporating definitely protects against personal liability. I would think Jon is already incorporated. The question is, is it financially feasible for Jon to do what you suggest given AWF's current situation?

That's a LLM you're replying to. Either that or LLMs write exactly like Jason does.

Anyways, so the current situation is:
1. AWF relies on threads about politics to subsist
2. Threads about politics hurt ad revenue
3. UK legislation is the source of the problem
4. UK legislation applies if the site has users from UK
5. The very owner is from UK
6. The very mods happily write the inflammatory content the site relies on
7. AWF has been flagged by the ad authority and the UK authority aforementioned

A few questions:
1. What is OSL requiring the owner to do with the flagged content? is there a time limit? is it too late?
2. Depending on 1, what will be done?
3. What percentage of the ad revenue comes from UK? why not simply geoblock UK and have them figure out they need VPN or Tor to access the site?

 

[BlueSpruce]

That's a LLM you're replying to. Either that or LLMs write exactly like Jason does.

Is it possible Jason is a bot? Geez, are we humans heading towards extinction? Can Xenforo provide a CAPTCHA challenge to authenticate humans when they login?

A few questions:
1. What is OSL requiring the owner to do with the flagged content? is there a time limit? is it too late?

I would hope it's only a slap in the hand warning allowing Jon to remedy.

3. ... why not simply geoblock UK and have them figure out they need VPN or Tor?

How can you geoblock UK if AWF is a UK site? I don't think that would make any difference because AWF is still a UK business owned by a UK resident. Blocking UK would further diminish traffic, and thus revenue.

 

[ColinEssex]

I'm afraid I have to show my ignorance. Just what exactly is the problem that has caused this flurry of talk about closing forums, losing AWF etc? I can't really see anything outrageous in the banter. It's been going on for over 20 years its nothing new, so, why now?
Col

 

[BlueSpruce]

I'm afraid I have to show my ignorance. Just what exactly is the problem that has caused this flurry of talk about closing forums, losing AWF etc? I can't really see anything outrageous in the banter. It's been going on for over 20 years its nothing new, so, why now?
Col

I guess it's a combination of the UK's Online Safety Act thought police, Goggles AdSense warning, and Goggle AI providing tech related answers.

 

[Jason Lee Hayes]

Is it possible Jason is a bot? Geez, are we humans heading towards extinction? Can Xenforo provide a CAPTCHA challenge to authenticate humans when they login?

I would hope it's only a slap in the hand warning allowing Jon to remedy.

How can you geoblock UK if AWF is a UK site? I don't think that would make any difference because AWF is still a UK business owned by a UK resident. Blocking UK would further diminish traffic, and thus revenue.

I can confirm that I am not a bot. However, I did consult a language model to gain additional perspective. I’ve also used it recently to explore potential strategies for responding to similar actions. It has highlighted several considerations I hadn’t previously thought of, which may prove useful.