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.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Please setup a politics forum and I'll signpost the CA forum here to it.

Grand old Currents

 

[verreauxi]

Honestly great news about closing the CA. Please jettison that bloated corpse of opinions/messages/mahem into a giant black hole, never to be seen again. I'm more than content with the Ale House and the other forums.

I am not being sarcastic. I much preferred GOT w/out the CA forum, despite me participating in it heavily.

 

[trueblue84]

Sure, sure, sure.

You just want to shut down that which you disagree with. There is no obligation in life to be protected from people being wrong, idiotic, etc.

Put your big boy pants on and s roll past if you don't like it. Resorting to forcing forums to close, etc, is fascist, and people who support it... Well...

It's not about putting big boy pants on.

Here's a few examples, but there's thousands more:

Should the sandy hook families put their big boy pants on when Alex Jones called them liars and paid actors?

Should families of kids who have been coerced by people online into committing suicide be told to suck it up?

Should musk be allowed to publish untruths on the largest social media platform because he owns it?

Should we all accept what happened around the UK, after the Southport murders because people though it was fun to speculate?

Should medical professionals be threatened and harassed because a group of people read that COVID is fake and they're injecting you with 5G?

All just free speech, innit?

I'm not sure what the issue is with providing some sort of legal framework to protect people online from things that are are not tolerated in the real world. The only argument I ever hear is "well, it's just the start". People seem to think the internet was designed to be a free for all and the legal wild west, where anything goes. Tim berners-lee certainly doesn't agree with that view.

“I Was Devastated”: The Man Who Created the World Wide Web Has Some Regrets

Tim Berners-Lee has seen his creation debased by everything from fake news to mass surveillance. But he’s got a plan to fix it.

www.vanityfair.com

 

[Hinchcliffe's Corner]

Again, just ignore them. The answer isn't to shut everything down.

It's Danny's forum, he can do whatever makes it easiest for him, it's not the democracy you're looking for. I'm sure he hasn't made the decision lightly but he has volunteered his time for decades now running this place and has every right to be rid of a few headaches.

 

[TrailerTrash]

It's Danny's forum, he can do whatever makes it easiest for him, it's not the democracy you're looking for. I'm sure he hasn't made the decision lightly but he has volunteered his time for decades now running this place and has every right to be rid of a few headaches.

It's absolutely his, and I'm not telling him what to do. At no point in this thread have I done so.

I am, however, deriding those who would cheer on anything forcing his hand.

 

[trueblue84]

Hmm.

The thing is, the bigger platforms are the ones most resilient.

Some wider context below from a forum that's closing;

LFGSS and Microcosm shutting down 16th March 2025 (the day before the Online Safety Act is enforced) | LFGSS

www.lfgss.com

I agree that it's the small guys that feel it most accutely and are most exposed, but something has to be done to regulate the internet and give some powers to reign in the truly horrific stuff that's out there.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

If only I had the technical know-how, time or money.

If of genuine interest, I can help you set one up with the technical side.

Time is the biggie. I get that. Especially when someone reports hateful content on your forum and you have to answer that complaint.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here mate.

Me either?

You've challenged the logic behind my thread after having a quick skim - I'm answering it by saying if you can't see how the OSA impacts forums, particularly one that's running an unmoderated current affairs forum - then all I can do is suggest you actually go and read beyond a quick skim. I've shared a few resources. Even if you just read the guidance here;

The risk assessment guidance, at a mere 84 pages, is actually one of the better and more concise documents, and you probably do need to read that one all the way through.

Or heck, go and ask ChatGPT something as basic as "Can I not moderate a current affairs forum and be ok with the online safety act" and see what it tells you.

I agree with your verdict on the cycling forum too - on the surface of it, but from a quick skim of their setup - they'd need to spend a fair bit of money on tech to make them compliant and a massive amount of time to migrate to that tech. I don't blame them at all for knocking it on the head for the reasons I mentioned here in December.

Ultimately - you can't just ignore compliance because "they won't enforce it". What happens when people complain and we have to answer? We'll definitely get them. We do now. You have to comply with UK law. That act doesn't allow us to run an unmoderated forum.

Closer to home, here a football forum's interpretation;

RTG - The end of the forum is nigh

Unless something changes in the Online Safety Act that is, as it is due to take full effect in March 2025. RTG despite being relatively small falls foul of the majority of the conditions and continuing to provide the service will simply not be practical with the resources we have (both people...

www.readytogo.net

 

[tsubaki]

"I've just had a quick run through the requirements"

I suggest you read more and if you can't see why our approach to CA (unmoderated) would be problematic then read again.

FWIW I don't think the CA forum was unmoderated, at least as defined as such in the OSA. If someone had posted something illegal on there and it was reported, I am 100% sure you or one of the mods would have dealt with it.

 

[TrailerTrash]

It's not about putting big boy pants on.

Here's a few examples, but there's thousands more:

Should the sandy hook families put their big boy pants on when Alex Jones called them liars and paid actors?

Should families of kids who have been coerced by people online into committing suicide be told to suck it up?

Should musk be allowed to publish untruths on the largest social media platform because he owns it?

Should we all accept what happened around the UK, after the Southport murders because people though it was fun to speculate?

Should medical professionals be threatened and harassed because a group of people read that COVID is fake and they're injecting you with 5G?

All just free speech, innit?

I'm not sure what the issue is with providing some sort of legal framework to protect people online from things that are are not tolerated in the real world. The only argument I ever hear is "well, it's just the start". People seem to think the internet was designed to be a free for all and the legal wild west, where anything goes. Tim berners-lee certainly doesn't agree with that view.

“I Was Devastated”: The Man Who Created the World Wide Web Has Some Regrets

Tim Berners-Lee has seen his creation debased by everything from fake news to mass surveillance. But he’s got a plan to fix it.

www.vanityfair.com

People can be incredibly crappy. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the solution.

The answer to incitement to violence, death threats, etc, is moderation, involving the police, etc, it is not gleefully shutting down anywhere that has discourse, just because you don't like it.

One thing we should all realise by now, is that what was misinformation yesterday, is the truth tomorrow.

Who gets to determine this? You? Starmer? Unelected bureaucrats in an office somewhere? The problem is not the extremes getting removed, but the eventual removal of everything, just in case. You seem with that, however.

Forcing forum owners hands, making them [Poor language removed] down either entire forums, or simply subsets, is too far. It's Orwellian. Simple discussion will be curtailed, not just your extremes.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

It's Danny's forum, he can do whatever makes it easiest for him, it's not the democracy you're looking for. I'm sure he hasn't made the decision lightly but he has volunteered his time for decades now running this place and has every right to be rid of a few headaches.

It's absolutely his, and I'm not telling him what to do. At no point in this thread have I done so.

I am, however, deriding those who would cheer on anything forcing his hand.

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



... 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 agree that it's the small guys that feel it most accutely and are most exposed, but something has to be done to regulate the internet and give some powers to reign in the truly horrific stuff that's out there.

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

 

[trueblue84]

People can be incredibly crappy. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the solution.

The answer to incitement to violence, death threats, etc, is moderation, involving the police, etc, it is not gleefully shutting down anywhere that has discourse, just because you don't like it.

One thing we should all realise by now, is that what was misinformation yesterday, is the truth tomorrow.

Who gets to determine this? You? Starmer? Unelected bureaucrats in an office somewhere? The problem is not the extremes getting removed, but the eventual removal of everything, just in case. You seem with that, however.

Forcing forum owners hands, making them [Poor language removed] down either entire forums, or simply subsets, is too far. It's Orwellian. Simple discussion will be curtailed, not just your extremes.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Your argument is "this is just the start. they'll come after you next". There can't be a legal black hole when so much happens online.

Do you have any issue with UK laws and regulations we live with day to day? Should banking have regulations removed because it's bureaucracy and government interfering in our lives?

Twitter is the largest news media provider, but has no journalistic or editorial standards that it has to adhere to. That means the majority of people around the world get their news from a site that can lie and spread misinformation at will. it's owned by someone who is the richest person there's ever been, who has access to the US president and who has government departments in his hands.

The rules of the game have changed and countries need to get on top of it or there'll be chaos.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

FWIW I don't think the CA forum was unmoderated, at least as defined as such in the OSA. If someone had posted something illegal on there and it was reported, I am 100% sure you or one of the mods would have dealt with it.

I thought that would be a bit of a workaround too. I figured early days that all we'd need to do is document that.

But it's not just illegal content as we've long defined. There's misinformation, hateful content etc - one member reported another as making hateful posts last month because they were autistic. I disagreed. They've said they'll report that. When that happens in future - I need to ensure I, and the platform are protected/fully compliant. If I can't - what happens then?

 

[ste d' indica]

If of genuine interest, I can help you set one up with the technical side.

Time is the biggie. I get that. Especially when someone reports hateful content on your forum and you have to answer that complaint.



Me either?

You've challenged the logic behind my thread after having a quick skim - I'm answering it by saying if you can't see how the OSA impacts forums, particularly one that's running an unmoderated current affairs forum - then all I can do is suggest you actually go and read beyond a quick skim. I've shared a few resources. Even if you just read the guidance here;



Or heck, go and ask ChatGPT something as basic as "Can I not moderate a current affairs forum and be ok with the online safety act" and see what it tells you.

I agree with your verdict on the cycling forum too - on the surface of it, but from a quick skim of their setup - they'd need to spend a fair bit of money on tech to make them compliant and a massive amount of time to migrate to that tech. I don't blame them at all for knocking it on the head for the reasons I mentioned here in December.

Ultimately - you can't just ignore compliance because "they won't enforce it". What happens when people complain and we have to answer? We'll definitely get them. We do now. You have to comply with UK law. That act doesn't allow us to run an unmoderated forum.

Closer to home, here a football forum's interpretation;

RTG - The end of the forum is nigh

Unless something changes in the Online Safety Act that is, as it is due to take full effect in March 2025. RTG despite being relatively small falls foul of the majority of the conditions and continuing to provide the service will simply not be practical with the resources we have (both people...

www.readytogo.net

Sorry if you felt I was challenging you mate, that wasn't my intent - if anything due to the good work you and team do before regulation was required I think you're well placed in terms of compliance. I completely understand how OSA impacts forums, I acknowledged it was a fudge of a legislation.
When I said a skim, I actually went straight to legislation.gov and DSIT"s guidance. It wasn't a flippant comment, I work in this field and quickly reviewing legislation is part of my job, as are the challenges of implementing regulations.

 

[TrailerTrash]

Nonsense. People are in prison for Facebook and twitter posts.

They are as open to legalities as any other digital communications.

Twitter is irrelevant to THIS forum being forced to shut down parts to satisfy this need to control discussions.

THAT is the issue.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Sorry if you felt I was challenging you mate, that wasn't my intent - if anything due to the good work you and team do before regulation was required I think you're well placed in terms of compliance. I completely understand how OSA impacts forums, I acknowledged it was a fudge of a legislation.
When I said a skim, I actually went straight to legislation.gov and DSIT"s guidance. It wasn't a flippant comment, I work in this field and quickly reviewing legislation is part of my job, as are the challenges of implementing regulations.

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;






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



@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.