UK Online Safety Laws - I, and therefore the site, are at risk (8 Viewers)

[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.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The people who think they know best about how things should be run, went around you. Now that they’ve won, they feel emboldened. I have no doubt this will continue regardless of the subject matter or who’s moderating. That was never the real issue. The issue has always been that the owner wouldn’t bend to their will, everything else is just an excuse in my opinion.

 

[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 chared 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.

 

[Pat Hartman]

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

I'm pretty sure I know who it was