Anyone* would be crazy to run a UK-based or somewhat UK-centric forum today. Whether it be for a hobby, profession, or just social interaction. The government doesn’t perceive these sites as having any value (they don't employ people or generate corporation tax).
[*] Unless you are a multibillion $ company with an army of moderators, compliance people, lawyers.
Well I'm on a forum run by a UK company, hosted in the UK, and we've talked about this, but they're staying online. And, no, they're not a multibillion dollar company.
I don't see our moderators needing to do any more work than they're already doing, and have been doing for years, to be honest.
As long as they don't upset anyone with influence (government, media, etc.), they'll probably be fine. Otherwise, at best they'll be looking at a ruinously expensive legal battle to justify if what they did was "reasonable" or "proportionate" - the vague terms used by the law.
For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.
At least they're a UK company though so presumably they've at least got some money to support this. If you're an individual running a hobby forum then you're SOL
more than just forums, it's basically a failed state now. I knew when I left (I was the last of my school year to do so) it was going to get bad once Elizabeth died, and that would be soon, but I never imagined it would get this bad.
The plan for April is to remove the need for police to obtain a warrant to search peoples homes - that bad.
I'd say "there will be blood on the streets", but there already is...
No, the proposal is that there is a power of entry where the police have reasonable grounds to believe stolen property is on the premises and that this is supported by tracking data and that authority to enter is provided and recorded by a police inspector.
This is analogous to s18 PACE post-arrest powers, grafted onto s17 PACE.
The alternative is that we continue to require police to try and get a fast-time warrant while plotted up outside a premises; this is not a quick process, I've done it and it took nearly two hours.
The topic here is how they made running public forums a crime.
After making secure communications a crime.
And you think a state like that cares about the formalities? lol..
They just doing what every other monarchy and dictatorship has done in a desperate bid to hold onto power while the state collapses due to inept leadership.
I find it terrifying that you consider this to be legitimate grounds for a search, and a reasonable procedure for obtaining permission to do so. They should get in line and get permission from proper legal authorities, like all other law enforcement.
While I hate how the UK is becoming even more of a police state, that law (or that part of a law) is the least worthy of criticism. It simply codifies one instance of reasonable grounds for a search, so that it does not have to be decided on a case-by-case basis by a judge. I.e. a judge is asked to decide if something is justified grounds for a search - now the law says "this narrow case is justified grounds, you don't have to ask a judge".
Or in other words, the proper legal authorities are parliament and the law itself. Sometimes the law needs interpreting and judgment calls, which where warrants come in. This law removes the need for interpretation in one narrow and clearly defined case. If before judges were expected to issue warrants on the kind of evidence that this law requires, then now codifying that expectation and removing what has now become nothing but a bureaucratic delay doesn't reduce liberty.
Its not a slippery slope, its carte blanche for a police force with a reputation for e.g. beating elderly people to death because they looked at them wrong (most famous being Ian Tomlison, but its fairly regular) to not have to hold back just simply because they run into a locked door.
And that is before you get into the court system, which if you need a quick primer, just look at the treatment of Julian Assange - and thats a "best case" for someone with millions of global supporters.
Uk police have targets to hit, they can't hit those targets going after real criminals, so they predominantly target people nieve enough to think they want to help them.
Of course they had to make running public forums a crime.
>What does Elizabeth (presumably the 2nd) dying have to do with anything?
Lets just say her replacements brother is Andrew, and his best mate was Jimmey Saville. Should tell you all you need to know about her replacement with less chance of me ending up like David Kelly.
Heads of state do matter, regardless of how much propaganda they push that they only matter in other countries. These laws are not something the labour voters asked for.
I don’t understand this. The monarchy hasn’t had influence over parliament and the government for over 300 years. You may be able to point to attempts at doing so (eg the Black Spider letter), however, parliament is fully sovereign.
Kier Starmer is (pretty much) to the UK what JD Vance is to the US.
Appointed by the head of state. Meets the head of state regularly to be told what to do (wednesdays iirc).
Think about what it has taken for you to say what you just said despite those facts.
We are also talking about what is still the richest, most most powerful family on the planet. You think Elon musk is rich for owning Tesla and Twitter, these guys still own for example, England, Wales, Canada and Australia.
First of all, the King isn’t Prince Andrew. That guy simply isn’t the head of state and nor will he ever be.
Secondly, the British monarchy have absolutely nothing to do with politics and have remained impartial for nearly 100 years.
The UK government has always been right wing compared to most of the rest of western Europe. It sucks, but it is what it is. But the way you’re talking is as if the UK has suddenly gone to hell when the reality is just that this is just more of the same.
If anything, the biggest footgun the UK has done was leaving the EU, and that was something the dumb British public voted for. We did it to ourselves.
The opposite is true. The new law makes it considerably more risky for large companies because the law is specifically designed to hold them to account for conduct on their platforms. The (perceived) risk for small websites is unintended and the requirements are very achievable for small websites. The law is intended for and will be used to eviscerate Facebook etc. for their wrongs. We are far more likely to see Facebook etc. leave the UK market than we are see any small websites suffer.
A small website operator can keep child pornography off their platform with ease. Facebook have a mountain to climb — regardless of their resources.
> A small website operator can keep child pornography off their platform with ease. Facebook have a mountain to climb — regardless of their resources.
Facebook can actually train AI to detect CSAM, and is probably already doing so in cooperation with NCMEC and similar organisations/authorities across the world.
Your average small website? No chance. Obtaining training material actively is seriously illegal everywhere, and keeping material that others upload is just as bad in most jurisdictions.
The big guys get the toys, the small guys have to worry all the goddamn time if some pedos are going to use their forum or whatnot.
But you shouldnt need to use file uploading services! File upload doesnt require additional services, it has been a well understood part of HTTP for decades. You can do file upload using normal web form submission in your web server/CMS/Rails/Laravel/CGI program without paying a monthly subscription to some service at an exorbitant markup.
Also, those filters are obviously imperfect. Remember the man who got his Google account terminated because he took a photo of his son's rash to send to his doctor? Pedo alert, pedo alert, a child is naked in a photo. My parents must be pedos too, they took a photo of me sitting in the bath when I was a toddler. Call the police.
Have you run a forum, in, say, the last decade? The amount of spam bots constantly posting links to everything from scams to pints to guns is immense - and no, captchas don’t solve it.
“
We’ve heard concerns from some smaller services that the new rules will be too burdensome for them. Some of them believe they don’t have the resources to dedicate to assessing risk on their platforms, and to making sure they have measures in place to help them comply with the rules. As a result, some smaller services feel they might need to shut down completely.
So, we wanted to reassure those smaller services that this is unlikely to be the case“
“If organisations have carried out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and determined, with good reason, that the risks they face are low, they will only be expected to have basic but important measures to remove illegal content when they become aware of it. These include:
easy-to-find, understandable terms and conditions;
a complaints tool that allows users to report illegal or harmful material when they see it, backed up by a process to deal with those complaints;
the ability to review content and take it down quickly if they have reason to believe it is illegal; and
a specific individual responsible for compliance, who we can contact if we need to.”
>they will only be expected to have basic but important measures to remove illegal content when they become aware of it. These include:
>easy-to-find, understandable terms and conditions; a complaints tool that allows users to report illegal or harmful material when they see it, backed up by a process to deal with those complaints; the ability to review content and take it down quickly if they have reason to believe it is illegal; and a specific individual responsible for compliance, who we can contact if we need to.”
All of those things are buttons to click and ship with every piece of forum software from the last decade. No forum can survive without moderation because of spam so these tools and policies will already be in place on every website with user generated content.
"We pinky swear to totes not enforce the law as written [unless and until we decide, with no notice or warning, to do so] up to and including criminal penalties". Not as reassuring as you claim it to be.
Exactly - the liability risk is huge, and relying on them not enforcing the law because they say they are 'unlikely' to on small sites is not a risk any sane person would take.
That's not what they are saying. What they are saying is that the law as written doesn't require the things that many small sites have been saying will be too expensive to comply with. The law as written only requires those things for large site and sites with elevated risk of certain harms. For most small sites any required changes will just be minor tweaks to things they are already doing.
We don’t need to trust what they say, we just need to engage in a little critical thinking. What’s the benefit for Ofcom in pursuing tiny websites? There’s no political benefit, no financial benefit… the guidance from Ofcom reaffirms the natural conclusion.
There is no political benefit to imposing liability on any online forum operator for content posted by others?
Governments can abuse their power to silence speech it doesn't like. Governments can use agitators to develop pretext for legal action. Governments can make examples out of small-time defendants to send chilling effects. Governments can have prosecutors who may not be evil, but merely overzealous and harmful.
At the end, it is about a default to freedom of speech and content online (short of objectively illegal content) or a default to self-censorship and closing the gates on open forums.
Sorry, but that's foolish beyond belief. The law allows and probably mandates them to do so. You can pretend that's not what the law says but it clearly does. And it was written with intent and advice, so that's what the writers intended as well.
But if it's so simple, volunteer. Take on the criminal penalties yourself and perform the reviews.
I'll remind you of two thing which a lot of people often forget with hobbies/volunteering and may make this argument moot for you: Just because someone gives time for free doesn't mean that time doesn't cost them or can easily be increased without significantly impacting the giver. Secondly that some parts of a hobby can be work that is required for the fun part of the hobby and changing the ratio of fun:work can kill any motivation for the hobby.
To your point even your extract from the link there are compliance costs.
>So, we wanted to reassure those smaller services that this is *unlikely* to be the case
Your source admits there are extra costs that will likely cause some small services to have to shutdown if the costs are to burdensome for them, they are just saying that they hope the costs are small enough that it doesn't put most small services in that position.
Even in your quote it explicitly lists extra costs. i.e. the cost of a compliant compliance tool. Obviously the government isn't going to implement it or spend the time moderating reports or abuse of reports. Which means the cost of extra hours moderating and setting it up are on the service provider.
"Must have an individual responsible for compliance". So either employ someone to take this risk or take on the risk and responsibility yourself and the associated due diligence costs (lawyers in the UK are only free if you're already losing hours of your life to the court system).
These costs will definetly push some people over the line to not wanting to host such services. Especially when the wording is so wide that you need to moderate out insults in your forum.
Jesus Christ! Your comment would probably be flagged as foreign propaganda to soft peddle broken UK policies, that is if the US had such rules. My comment should be flagged because that could be an insulting insinuation or the expletive at the start of this paragraph could be stirring up religious hatred by being needlessly blasphemous. And a moderator has to read the entire post to get to the non compliant part.
Many of the provisions of the act apply to all user-to-user services, not just Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 services.
For example, the site must have an "illegal content risk assessment" and a "children’s risk assessment". And the children's risk assessment is a four-dimensional matrix of age groups, types on content, ways of using the service and types of harm. And it's got to be updated before making any "significant" change to any aspect of a service’s design or operation. It also makes it mandatory to have terms of service, and to apply them consistently. The site must have a content reporting procedure, a complaints procedure, and maintain written records.
Now obviously the operator of a bicycling forum might say "eh, let's ignore all that, they probably don't mean us"
But if you read the law and interpret its words literally, a bicycling forum is a user-to-user service, and a public forum is almost certain to be read by children from time to time.
[*] Unless you are a multibillion $ company with an army of moderators, compliance people, lawyers.