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

[moke123]

2. Appoint moderators as volunteers or contractors
• Define their role clearly in writing.
• Include indemnity clauses: “Moderators act in good faith and are not personally liable for user content.”

Sorry to say, It would probably also be prudent to ban the moderators from participating in the threads as participation would negate their neutrality.

 

[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?

 

[BlueSpruce]

That's a LLM you're replying to. Either that or LLMs write exactly like Jason does.

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?

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?

I would hope it's only a slap in the hand warning allowing Jon to remedy.

3. ... why not simply geoblock UK and have them figure out they need VPN or Tor?

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.

 

[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

 

[BlueSpruce]

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

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.

 

[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.

 

[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/

 

[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?

 

[AccessBlaster]

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?

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

 

[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...