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

[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?

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[DHookom]

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I have noticed my name taken favorably as an "ethical" moderator. Thank you, those who offered those opinions. However, all of you who offered those thoughts must realize I am quite as guilty as others in bearing a certain bias. Though religiously, I am atheist, I have a cultural background of growing up in a Christian family and ethnically, I am 1/4th European Jewish. It would be very difficult for me to stay out of emotionally charged discussions.

As to the suggestions:

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

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. Probably tedious, but it might help.

3. Increase the moderation threshold within The Watercooler. Do you mean that Watercooler threads need approval before becoming visible, similar to what is happening in the Sample Databases area? If so, then that might help.

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 agree it should be a new moderator. But here, I fear that the new moderator would have the problem of being the bearer of bad news and would have to be a strong person to operate in the face of unpopularity. Not only that, but the person in this role would have to be able to resist temptation in choosing sides on the subject matter around any particular moderation action. I saw my name as a potential choice. I explicitly DO NOT volunteer for such a position as I have already developed a reputation regarding my social, religious, and political beliefs and therefore question whether I could isolate myself that well.

Having offered my opinions, I also offer Jon any help I CAN give to get through this situation.

 

[NauticalGent]

All ideas you disagree with are hate speech. Are you the judas?

Wow. Uncalled for. You really cant help yourself, can you?

When the "AWF rogue moderator" is mentioned here and anywhere else, everyone knows who they are referring to. No names have ever been mentioned, yet you reveal yourself , living up to your billing and leaving no doubt.

A hit dog will howl...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If you knew that Egypt annexed Gaza and Jordan annexed Samara and Judea in 1948 while they were trying to destroy Israel then you're one in a million. And that is just ONE of the many facts of history that the Hamas supporters don't know. If you didn't know, then be honest and say thank you.

Pat, STOP BRINGING THAT TOPIC INTO THIS THREAD!!!!!! I have (with Jon's agreement) shut down two non-tech threads over this topic already. LEAVE IT BE!!!!!!!

I've been on this forum for about 24 years. In the last couple of years you have shown a level of fervency in your discussion that is unfamiliar. I wonder if something has happened outside the forum that is coloring your responses. (No, don't tell me, publicly or privately - the comment is more a request for introspection on your part.) Whatever it is that is bugging you, try to leave it at the door. You are a good person but you have become abrasive.

If at some moment in the forums you believe you are dealing with a fool, may I remind you of Mark Twain's relevant comments?

After the first couple of rounds, this one becomes relevant: "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference".

When someone could not keep quiet,... "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt".

When dealing with ingrained beliefs: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled".

When STILL dealing with ingrained beliefs: "The truth has no defense against a fool determined to believe a lie".

And this has a certain sting to it: "Let us be thankful for the fools; if not for them, the rest of us could not succeed".