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

[ColinEssex]

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.

Hmm, if I ever understand any of that I'll let you know. Who is 'goggles'? Have you caught something off Pat? Anyway, I thought the mods were supposed to monitor things, not spend all day arguing with people who have a different opinion to theirs.

To me, AI is artificial insemination and has been going on for years. I think I'll retreat from reality and go back to my garden. I cant lie, this is all too complicated for me.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Col, I cannot dispute that things have gotten complicated. You are quite right that this forum was lightly moderated most of the time and had nearly wide-open discussion. However, the Online Safety Act popped up, passed in 2023 and went into effect July, 2025. This act claims to give UK "censors" the right to control what other people see and say regardless of where they originate. This is a UK act, so don't go blaming the USA for it. It is the worst kind of law because it has a lot of exceptions and overlapping authorities that mean it is going to do what it does at the discretion of someone who probably doesn't have anyone's best interests at heart.

 

[pbaldy]

Regarding "I thought the mods were supposed to monitor things, not spend all day arguing with people who have a different opinion to theirs."

Mods are typically "power users" of a forum that are asked at some point to help moderate that forum. I'm guessing their heavy use of the forum means they are around a lot, and perhaps also have a vested interest in its success. There is no expectation that they cease being "users" and limit themselves to moderating. Given the low pay (okay, no pay), I doubt anyone would take on the job otherwise.

 

[BlueSpruce]

Who is 'goggles'? Have you caught something off Pat? Anyway

no pun intended

There is no expectation that they [moderators] cease being "users" and limit themselves to moderating.

Agreed, they can contribute, but are supposed to remain neutral in arguments and maintain order if someone violates the house rules.

Look at the definition of an online moderator:

 

[pbaldy]

Agreed, they can contribute, but are supposed to remain neutral in arguments and maintain order if someone violates the house rules.

I don't agree that they need to be neutral in arguments (political or otherwise); they're allowed to have and express opinions.

I would say that they should set a high bar in how those arguments are presented.

 

[BlueSpruce]

FYI, Daniel Pineault has been silently following AWF's current issues and posted the following about it in his Devhut site.

In his blog, Daniel said he did a "three-week anonymous trial on AWF".

https://www.devhut.net/the-shuttere...d-the-wavering-future-of-access-world-forums/

There also are older negative posts about AWF on his site's blog.

https://www.devhut.net/ms-access-forums-and-discussion-groups/

Mod note: Screenshots removed. Copyright violation.

 

[DHookom]

I was aware of Daniel’s opinions a while back and agree.

 

[BlueSpruce]

I was aware of Daniel’s opinions a while back and agree.

Even if it's true, it's unethical and unprofessional for an Access forum's site owner to be posting negative remarks about another Access site. It's like wanting to chop up firewood from a tree that hasn't fallen yet.

 

[Edgar_]

Can anybody please explain what that pesky legislation is flagging? How is this site harmful to children exactly? Is it the utteraccess owner thread, that's the only thing that comes close, right? Something else? Perhaps the war happy propaganda? Is it the mods wishing to bomb civilians? What is it exactly?

 

[Edgar_]

How can you geoblock UK if AWF is a UK site?

You check the IP and if it's from UK, you get limited access or no access at all.

Hypothetically, it's probably the Islam, Jew, references along with others directed at Trump, you know the ones.

Holy Sith, 99% of the Watercooler then?

 

[DHookom]

Even if it's true, it's unethical and unprofessional for an Access forum's site owner to be posting negative remarks about another Access site. It's like wanting to chop up firewood from a tree that hasn't fallen yet.

I wasn’t aware that Daniel was a forum site owner.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

3 weeks? And then a mostly neutral report, a report a bit negative on some moderators...

Clickbait I believe....

You don't like some aspects of the forum? You obviously don't know how to use it?

There's a facility to block anything you don't like so you can have your pristine super clean professional interactions...

Then you have the politically orientated threads which produce the most clickbait in other words the most revenue to support the forum...

But obviously you know better!

Now let's get to the moderator issue... Again the forum has a excellent system where you can report anybody for anything,. I don't recall seeing any reports about moderator behavior?

You might counter that by suggesting you didn't report it because you didn't think a report about a moderator would be taken seriously?

The top ethical moderator in my opinion is Doc man, Richard, -- do you honestly believe that Richard would allow any such thing to happen?

Let's get back to clickbait... The stuff you object to on the forum, the stuff that supports the forum could be referred to as clickbait and your own post which actually doesn't attack AWF, as it's benign with a slight whingy note, is obviously clickbait...

 

[BlueSpruce]

3 weeks? And then a mostly neutral report

Mostly neutral? and you should've seen what Daniel has posted in the past about AWF that Jon called him out on. Daniel removed a lot of it, but you can still see it via The Wayback Machine.

The fact remains that the UK thought police doesn't share your opinions, regardless of whether you can hide posts and block people you don't like. It doesn't really matter anymore what you and I think about AWF, rather what the thought police thinks and will do.

 

[Jon]

FYI, Daniel Pineault has been silently following AWF's current issues and posted the following about it in his Devhut site.

In his blog, Daniel said he did a "three-week anonymous trial on AWF".

I think his comments were largely fair. It is not new to me that some hate the non-technical discussion areas, especially politics. But many members love them. You can't please everybody. All I can do is provide options to hide the areas that members dislike. That way, both parties get the best of both worlds. You get the site you like, whatever your inclination.

Additionally, until now members were not aware that the Politics section helps fund the costs of running the site. Those who hate that section have a site they enjoy using because of its existence.

Sadly, we have a new overlord: The Online Safety Act. I disagree wholly with it, even if I understand its intentions are supposed to be positive. The collateral damage stifles free speech, and makes it hard for small sites to navigate its legal complexities. The site owner faces undue financial and legal risk, despite attempting to create a benign space for users to discuss topics of their choosing. Despite this, I have to comply. It is the law.

As things currently stand, it is likely that the Reform party will be the next UK government, and they said they will repeal this law. However, that is a few years away. If we close the Politics forum (almost certain) and heavily moderate the Watercooler, once we get a change of government we can again revert back to the free-flowing discussion that members love. If we survive that long.

I have 4 proposals for which I solicit your feedback:

1. Close the Politics forum (until the repeal of The Online Safety Act).

2. Create a list of words that will get starred out. Example words could be: Muslim, Islam, Islamist, Jews, Israel, Palestine, nazi. The word list would be more extensive.

3. Increase the moderation threshold within The Watercooler.

4. Have a new moderator who's specific role is to only moderate the other moderators. It is not for the squeamish. I suggest a new moderator because otherwise it is like the police policing themselves. While moderators police the members, who is policing them? Currently no one, but I suggest this new role be created to tackle that issue.

I wish I did not have to take these kind of measures, because the site has been a good home to many of you over the last 25 years. We got by. Without these changes, I fear both the risk to myself and the site will be untenable. It is a bit like someone else speeding but I get the ticket. And I would be responsible for thousands of drivers, where even one ticket could bankrupt me.

So, I welcome feedback on my 4 points above, and any other suggestions you may have.

 

[BlueSpruce]

I think his comments were largely fair. It is not new to me that some hate the non-technical discussion areas, especially politics. But many members love them. You can't please everybody. All I can do is provide options to hide the areas that members dislike. That way, both parties get the best of both worlds. You get the site you like, whatever your inclination.

Additionally, until now members were not aware that the Politics section helps fund the costs of running the site. Those who hate that section have a site they enjoy using because of its existence.

Sadly, we have a new overlord: The Online Safety Act. I disagree wholly with it, even if I understand its intentions are supposed to be positive. The collateral damage stifles free speech, and makes it hard for small sites to navigate its legal complexities. The site owner faces undue financial and legal risk, despite attempting to create a benign space for users to discuss topics of their choosing. Despite this, I have to comply. It is the law.

As things currently stand, it is likely that the Reform party will be the next UK government, and they said they will repeal this law. However, that is a few years away. If we close the Politics forum (almost certain) and heavily moderate the Watercooler, once we get a change of government we can again revert back to the free-flowing discussion that members love. If we survive that long.

I have 4 proposals for which I solicit your feedback:

1. Close the Politics forum (until the repeal of The Online Safety Act).

2. Create a list of words that will get starred out. Example words could be: Muslim, Islam, Islamist, Jews, Israel, Palestine, nazi. The word list would be more extensive.

3. Increase the moderation threshold within The Watercooler.

4. Have a new moderator who's specific role is to only moderate the other moderators. It is not for the squeamish. I suggest a new moderator because otherwise it is like the police policing themselves. While moderators police the members, who is policing them? Currently no one, but I suggest this new role be created to tackle that issue.

I wish I did not have to take these kind of measures, because the site has been a good home to many of you over the last 25 years. We got by. Without these changes, I fear both the risk to myself and the site will be untenable. It is a bit like someone else speeding but I get the ticket. And I would be responsible for thousands of drivers, where even one ticket could bankrupt me.

So, I welcome feedback on my 4 points above, and any other suggestions you may have.

I agree with all 4 of your suggestions!

As for #2, will all posts containing the new words your going to add get automatically starred out? If not, then hide or remove those posts.

As for #4, is the super moderator role the new person who will moderate all other moderators? If true, then I nominate The_Doc for that role.

As for protecting yourself and AWF, I suggest you add disclaimers in your home page, and ask all current members, and applicants, to certify they're not underage.

Thanks

EDIT: Daniel promptly removed the post about AWF from his site. I think Daniel regards his haughty spirit too much.

 

[Jon]

Banned words are auto-starred.

The moderators moderator will not be classed as a super moderator. I seek a new fresh moderator for that role so we have a change of status quo.

Disclaimers do nothing. Self-certification of age is insufficient.

 

[GPGeorge]

I think his comments were largely fair. It is not new to me that some hate the non-technical discussion areas, especially politics. But many members love them. You can't please everybody. All I can do is provide options to hide the areas that members dislike. That way, both parties get the best of both worlds. You get the site you like, whatever your inclination.

Additionally, until now members were not aware that the Politics section helps fund the costs of running the site. Those who hate that section have a site they enjoy using because of its existence.

Sadly, we have a new overlord: The Online Safety Act. I disagree wholly with it, even if I understand its intentions are supposed to be positive. The collateral damage stifles free speech, and makes it hard for small sites to navigate its legal complexities. The site owner faces undue financial and legal risk, despite attempting to create a benign space for users to discuss topics of their choosing. Despite this, I have to comply. It is the law.

As things currently stand, it is likely that the Reform party will be the next UK government, and they said they will repeal this law. However, that is a few years away. If we close the Politics forum (almost certain) and heavily moderate the Watercooler, once we get a change of government we can again revert back to the free-flowing discussion that members love. If we survive that long.

I have 4 proposals for which I solicit your feedback:

1. Close the Politics forum (until the repeal of The Online Safety Act).

2. Create a list of words that will get starred out. Example words could be: Muslim, Islam, Islamist, Jews, Israel, Palestine, nazi. The word list would be more extensive.

3. Increase the moderation threshold within The Watercooler.

4. Have a new moderator who's specific role is to only moderate the other moderators. It is not for the squeamish. I suggest a new moderator because otherwise it is like the police policing themselves. While moderators police the members, who is policing them? Currently no one, but I suggest this new role be created to tackle that issue.

I wish I did not have to take these kind of measures, because the site has been a good home to many of you over the last 25 years. We got by. Without these changes, I fear both the risk to myself and the site will be untenable. It is a bit like someone else speeding but I get the ticket. And I would be responsible for thousands of drivers, where even one ticket could bankrupt me.

So, I welcome feedback on my 4 points above, and any other suggestions you may have.

1. I personally wouldn't miss the Politics or Water Cooler Forums. I have them on "Ignore" now anyway. Simple, clean, effective, by the way, for those who keep whinging about them. It's all about exercising your freedom to choose.

Shutting them down would reduce the risk to the site itself without impacting the experience for me, or the great majority of members I think. I don't know how who rage
posts in the politics forum and who doesn't, and I don't care.

That said, the health of the site would be negatively impacted by shutting them down. And that's an important consideration.

To me, therefore, shutting down the revenue producing forums is a hard choice to make, but saving the site from oblivion seems infinitely more important.

2. A word list is a good idea under the circumstances, but it is, at least in part, bending the knee to the censors.

3. Again, bowing to the pressure to self-censor, but probably unavoidable.

4. The same. Joining the would-be censors may prolong the site's viability at the cost of an adding a layer of bureaucracy.

Ride out the storm as long as possible, though.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

I think his comments were largely fair. It is not new to me that some hate the non-technical discussion areas, especially politics. But many members love them. You can't please everybody. All I can do is provide options to hide the areas that members dislike. That way, both parties get the best of both worlds. You get the site you like, whatever your inclination.

Additionally, until now members were not aware that the Politics section helps fund the costs of running the site. Those who hate that section have a site they enjoy using because of its existence.

Sadly, we have a new overlord: The Online Safety Act. I disagree wholly with it, even if I understand its intentions are supposed to be positive. The collateral damage stifles free speech, and makes it hard for small sites to navigate its legal complexities. The site owner faces undue financial and legal risk, despite attempting to create a benign space for users to discuss topics of their choosing. Despite this, I have to comply. It is the law.

As things currently stand, it is likely that the Reform party will be the next UK government, and they said they will repeal this law. However, that is a few years away. If we close the Politics forum (almost certain) and heavily moderate the Watercooler, once we get a change of government we can again revert back to the free-flowing discussion that members love. If we survive that long.

I have 4 proposals for which I solicit your feedback:

1. Close the Politics forum (until the repeal of The Online Safety Act).

2. Create a list of words that will get starred out. Example words could be: Muslim, Islam, Islamist, Jews, Israel, Palestine, nazi. The word list would be more extensive.

3. Increase the moderation threshold within The Watercooler.

4. Have a new moderator who's specific role is to only moderate the other moderators. It is not for the squeamish. I suggest a new moderator because otherwise it is like the police policing themselves. While moderators police the members, who is policing them? Currently no one, but I suggest this new role be created to tackle that issue.

I wish I did not have to take these kind of measures, because the site has been a good home to many of you over the last 25 years. We got by. Without these changes, I fear both the risk to myself and the site will be untenable. It is a bit like someone else speeding but I get the ticket. And I would be responsible for thousands of drivers, where even one ticket could bankrupt me.

So, I welcome feedback on my 4 points above, and any other suggestions you may have.

1. Yes
2. Please add racist fascist nazi and other nasty adjectives to this list. The posters who use them are clueless on their real meanings. These posts should automatically be removed.
3. Yes
4. I wouldn't want this responsibility.

 

[NauticalGent]

Disclaimers do nothing. Self-certification of age is insufficient.

Too true.

Its a +1 for me on GPG's input.

Unlike him, however, the non-technical forums DO interest me. I rarely need assistance these days, not because my skills are so great, it's just my projects are in maintenance mode. Helping others is not a thing for me either, by the time I am aware of one, the First Responders (and I mean that in a good way) have already sorted it out.

I like the non-Access forums because the people here are much more intelligent that the riff-raff on FB - I deleted my account over a year ago - although at times there are just as closed-minded and opinionated.

All that aside Jon, whatever you decide will be supported by me and it goes without saying, if there is anything I can do, up to and including financial assistance, please ask.

This site and its members are largely responsible for my well-compensated living - for that I will always be grateful.

 

[NauticalGent]

4. Have a new moderator who's specific role is to only moderate the other moderators. It is not for the squeamish. I suggest a new moderator because otherwise it is like the police policing themselves. While moderators police the members, who is policing them? Currently no one, but I suggest this new role be created to tackle that issue.

Additionally, if you want recomendations for this individual, I have a few I would suggest. I am willing to do that in this thread as well as support why I nominated them.