UK Online Safety Laws - I, and therefore the site, are at risk (4 Viewers)

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 18:50
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
8,228
With the new UK online safety laws, I am both responsible and at legal and financial risk for members posts. For as long as I could, I let the discussion flow freely on this site. However, for self protection my policy has to change. When I (or the moderation team) see posts that are too close to the edge, we will delete them. When threads are getting too heated, we will close them, and perhaps also hide them.

The alternative is for me to either close the site to avoid personal liability, or wait until I get prosecuted, which will also result in site closure.

If you dislike this policy we can always put you personally at legal and financial risk because all they require is one named person who is responsible for everyones posts. Any volunteers?
 
When I (or the moderation team) see posts that are too close to the edge, we will delete them. When threads are getting too heated, we will close them, and perhaps also hide them.
But who moderates the moderators? :ROFLMAO:

It's a shitty state of affairs, Jon. I signed some petitions against this legislation when they were trying to shovel it through, trying to highlight the collateral damage to smaller sites without resources to implement the required vigilance; but, of course, someone must think of the children. :rolleyes:

Effin' idiots. 😖

I have blocked the Watercooler and Politics boards because I come here to help out with programming problems, and not to read a firehose of bigoted bile. But just because I don't always agree with or want to see that stuff, I'm still fully in favour that folks should be able to express what they think.

Sorry it's come to this because it will probably reduce AWF's traffic even further.
 
Criticizing Israel's leadership for their actions against Palestinian civilians does not constitute hate speech, or a violation of UK's Online Safety Laws. I think you're over reacting and if you curb freedom of speech based on biased moderators opinions, you will most certainly reduce AWF's traffic.
 
But it's not your house and family on the line, is it?
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.
 
MOVE to the USA Jon!!

Well, This is Utterly EMBARRASSING 🤦‍♂️

 
MOVE to the USA Jon!!

Well, This is Utterly EMBARRASSING 🤦‍♂️

It won't be long before the USA implements their own "Online Safety Act". It's ulterior motive is to squelch government criticism and freedom of speech in general. Freedom is an illusion.
 
But who moderates the moderators?

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?" That question has been around since the 1st or 2nd century, asked by the Roman poet Juvenal.

The answer specifically for AWF is that when someone reports improper behavior, the first duty of action is on the moderators who look at the "Reports" entries. The second line of defense is Jon.

I can tell you categorically, none of the moderators want to be censors. But when members complain about posts, whether from other members or moderators, we HAVE to look into it, at least until someone in England finally realizes that this viewpoint is not supportable long-term. Uncle G's post here makes it clear. The act in question suffers from overreach. Particularly if someone uses a VPN for a connection of questionable propriety, there will be limited ways to enforce anything.
 
Jesting aside. While I understand Jon's position, this is how THEY, you know, the complainers, win. It will ALWAYS be the complainers on the suppression side because the people who don't complain, understand the importance of free speech AND they know that no one in these conversations is actually bulling those who disagree.

Knowledge of the law should be obtained so that you don't shut down free speech out of fear. At least, do it with actual knowledge.
 
Knowledge of the law should be obtained so that you don't shut down free speech out of fear. At least, do it with actual knowledge.
(y)
I never reported a complaint about anyone's post in that "Attack on Israel" thread. I am perfectly capable of debating without bullying anyone, and still stand firmly behind what I posted in that thread.
 
Last edited:
A video clip inside the video shows Kier Starmer stating that we have free speech in the UK ---- I find it difficult to believe that Kier Starmer is a complete idiot --- and from what he does and tries to do --- I believe he thinks he has good intentions ---- but he's a bit like the democratic party in the USA in that everything he says and does is a complete disaster !!! I also understand he is a lawyer which would indicate that he has a reasonable level of education and a reasonably high IQ but something doesn't add up !!!
 
Knowledge of the law should be obtained so that you don't shut down free speech out of fear. At least, do it with actual knowledge.
This is perfect theory.

But the reality is that, even if Jon is charged with a case that is spurious, he had to come up with the legal costs to defend and fight it, which are unlikely to be recovered even if he won.

That is the problem with this legislation. It's not really about 'complainers' - the sentiments behind it are probably well intentioned - but companies like meta and Xitter (the real targets of the legislation) have the resources to handle any charges against then. But small community boards run by individuals or volunteers are caught up in the dragnet with disproportionately huge potential consequences
 
This is perfect theory.

But the reality is that, even if Jon is charged with a case that is spurious, he had to come up with the legal costs to defend and fight it, which are unlikely to be recovered even if he won.

That is the problem with this legislation. It's not really about 'complainers' - the sentiments behind it are probably well intentioned - but companies like meta and Xitter (the real targets of the legislation) have the resources to handle any charges against then. But small community boards run by individuals or volunteers are caught up in the dragnet with disproportionately huge potential consequences
So then what's the solution? Eliminate the socio/political forums and be strictly a tech site? Join a relevant group in LinkedIn, or other big social platform that can afford to pay legal costs?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom