Changes Coming To GOT

[GrandOldTeam]

Short Version

The UK government is forcing us to remove the Current Affairs forum, and NSFW type threads. Maybe also user to user private messaging.

Google 'Online Safety Act' if interested.

Long Rambling Version;

We're of course, an Everton Forum.

But in our 18+ years (not one of you wished the forum a happy birthday last week ffs), we've become a community beyond Everton.

Since 2017, we've sought to best accomodate 'current affairs' discussion in it's own sub forum - out the way, with a 'enter at own risk'/hands off moderation policy.

It's worked well.

Or as well as it could have done. Online. Politics.

However, the Online Safety Act (OSA) in the UK comes into effect on March 17, 2025. Someone much more articulate than I provides some commentary here. Also some more background info and it's implications here.

The implications of the act has already caused forums in their entirety to close, others have closed the ability to post. Some discussion on here of this act from December.

Moderating a Everton forum is challenging enough - we don't have the resource, ability, diplomacy to moderate politics in a way that would make us compliant with the act. Even if we did, I don't think we'd have the inclination to. Nor be prepared to accept the personal liability to do so.

Sadly then, we need to close the Current Affairs forum from 1st March.

We'll also need to close 'Not Safe For Work' threads, like 'The Fit Birds' thread.

There's a chance we may also need to disable user to user private messaging but I'm awaiting clarification on that.

But fear not. We can still fume about Everton.

 

[NeilMorepies]

Considering most social media is now “light touch” or “community-based”, there is no way they can be seen to be in any way as effective than GOT currently is. So I guess Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, etc will all be effectively banned from the UK.

Can’t see them doing that, so there will be a work around at some point, even if we have to wait for the big boys to take the government to court.

 

[Nymzee]

I don’t partake in the CA thread but just seeing the few idiots posting in this thread alone about it closing makes me very happy it’s closing. Get onto Reddit you monsters.

 

[Bryan+]

We need to drive down to Westminster like the farmers did, we can’t stand for this.

Anyone got a tractor

 

[ETID]

We need to drive down to Westminster like the farmers did, we can’t stand for this.

Anyone got a tractor

@chicoazul likes farming

 

[trueblue84]

The act has extraterritorial reach, meaning it can apply to websites and online services based outside the UK if they have a significant number of UK users or are accessible by UK users and pose a risk of harm.

How that works in reality - god knows.

I've read forum owners say they'll be using the likes of Cloudflare to deny UK users rather than bother to comply.

Does that mean RAWK will be unaffected?

 

[KaiserEFC]

Seems a bit fash to me on the part of the government, I won’t lie. But I totally get the forum has to be compliant

 

[Jebus_lives]

I'd rather keep Current Affairs, it's an active part of the site - from a sample of 3.5m views;

View attachment 294399

... removing it will make more moderation/makes The Ale House become a headache too.

But current Affairs, as it is now - would be an existential threat to the forum. It wouldn't be compliant with UK law.

To comply, we'd need to moderate it more so than we do the rest of the forum and that's just not feasible. It would tie us up in knots and that's before any complaints.



I'm not sure it'll have any real impact on the big'uns mate.

It'll give necessary power to act against a few small loon sites.

It's a good thing, but it's execution has meant more losers than necessary. I've felt they'd change it/make it less sledgehammer to crack a nut but doesn't seem to be happening and we're a month off now. There's a big shift to liability/risk to platforms owners - and evidently, a lot won't accept that.

Eventually you'll have forums have sections I'm currently working on like the below;

OFCOM Online Safety Act (OSA)

www.grandoldteam.com

User Safety

www.grandoldteam.com

... and I have a 30+ page document I'm still working on that demonstrates compliance and complaint procedures. On it, I can't specify we have a forum that we don't moderate, as well as page 3 material without an age gate unfortunately

It's a shame the CA has to close, but I fully understand why. If forums as large as Reddit shut down unmoderated content, it's a problem.

Just wondering if in the Ale House forum, recruiting more mods would help? It may help in the 'reasonable steps' part of mitigation. I'm sure there would be volunteers.

 

[HSWR]

Challenge away Ste

In fact, now I know you work in the field of reviewing legislation I might be sending you a near 30 page doc I'm pulling together to review because it's making my eyes bleed;

View attachment 294402

View attachment 294403


From the pretty extensive reading I've done - the various commentators I've consulted with... the lazy AI exchanges;

View attachment 294404

@tsubaki ^ the "harassment/bullying/harmful misinformation etc" is the type of content I referred to earlier.


... I struggle to see a scenario in which we can operate CA, or host page 3 material, and remain compliant.

Just based on a few points there, it is quite frightening that UK law is based around things that are not absolutes. Hate speech and misinformation should be black and white as an example but the last few years have shown that it is simply what is being defined as it at the time. There has been plenty of misinformation that is actually true at a later date or hate speech simply not being actual hate speech but I don't like what your saying. Just screams of censoring the internet , by forcing it to either go beyond it's means in cases like this to adhere or simply close down. It would make a lot more sense to age restrict content by proving age than this route.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Seems a bit fash to me on the part of the government, I won’t lie. But I totally get the forum has to be compliant

Pretty sure this all started under the last government

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

The work around would be to only open the CA for posting between the hours of 21:00 and 01:00 on a Friday and Saturday night, the established fireside chat hours for gents of a certain disposition.

 

[Nymzee]

PSA: if you’re a regular CA poster please don’t ruin the Ale House from March with politics and other nonsense.

 

[Jimishorts]

All this new regulation and the wrestling thread survives.

Biggest dangers on the forum left to post with impunity.

Make it make sense.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Just based on a few points there, it is quite frightening that UK law is based around things that are not absolutes. Hate speech and misinformation should be black and white as an example but the last few years have shown that it is simply what is being defined as it at the time. There has been plenty of misinformation that is actually true at a later date or hate speech simply not being actual hate speech but I don't like what your saying. Just screams of censoring the internet , by forcing it to either go beyond it's means in cases like this to adhere or simply close down. It would make a lot more sense to age restrict content by proving age than this route.

This is my concern.

It's not as simple as removing illegal content, when illegal content can include things like 'hateful' posts and misinformation. Can volunteer moderators on a football forum be arbiters of truth on global current affairs?

The act will undoubtedly be weaponised by agitators, or aggrieved folk. Against that reality, you have to ensure you can comfortably manage those inevitable challenges by being compliant, and leaving gaping holes like unmoderated forums, or NSFW threads undermines that.

If I put my tinfoil, orwellian hat on, I think the likes of this is a path to ID for internet/digital identities. Debate around safety and control would be interesting, but in the future we might be under pressure to ban people for misinformation who claim the state are controlling. Who will define misinformation?

 

[KaiserEFC]

This is my concern.

It's not as simple as removing illegal content, when illegal content can include things like 'hateful' posts and misinformation. Can volunteer moderators on a football forum be arbiters of truth on global current affairs?

The act will undoubtedly be weaponised by agitators, or aggrieved folk. Against that reality, you have to ensure you can comfortably manage those inevitable challenges by being compliant, and leaving gaping holes like unmoderated forums, or NSFW threads undermines that.

If I put my tinfoil, orwellian hat on, I think the likes of this is a path to ID for internet/digital identities. Debate around safety and control would be interesting, but in the future we might be under pressure to ban people for misinformation who claim the state are controlling. Who will define misinformation?

My concern is that they are basically attempting to end end to end encryption and essentially making true privacy a thing of the past.

They’ve used “safety” as a guide for increasing control before.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

My concern is that they are basically attempting to end end to end encryption and essentially making true privacy a thing of the past.

They’ve used “safety” as a guide for increasing control before.

They definitely are.

I dont think anyone can really dispute that.