UK Online Safety Laws - I, and therefore the site, are at risk (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[The_Doc_Man]

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.

 

[Jon]

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

 

[The_Doc_Man]

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

I'll believe they are going to do that. I'll also believe that a few good Ivy League lawyers will end up OWNING OfCom when they are done.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

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.

Jon that is horrible.

 

[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?

 

[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.