Will Basschat survive the Online Safety Act?

[fretmeister]

4 minutes ago, Wolfram said:

Of course forums won't disappear - this is only UK legislation - people in the US, EU and rest of world are not affected by this nonsense. But the post from the owner of thefretboard.co.uk is absolutely right: under the current proposed legislation, it will become almost impossible to run any kind of online forum from the UK, and international forums will just block all IP addresses from the UK. The risks are just too severe - a fine of up to £18 million and a criminal conviction for the owner / managers.

The legislation was drafted with only large, commercial, multinational companies like Facebook, X etc. in mind; if the legislation is enforced as it stands, those will be our only option in the UK for any kind of online discussion, unless we use VPNs to access international forums based abroad... which we all will... which will make the legislation utterly pointless, apart from having destroyed a large number of UK businesses.

 

50 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

Take an address in Ireland and move the site their, as it seems to be a Britico-British issue: problem solved.

 

 

The draft looks like it will apply to any forum that gets a lot of traffic from the UK -so the hosting location might not matter. While the govt might not be able to enforce against a foreign hosted site they can order UK ISP's to block access completely.

[fretmeister]

Here's the risk assessment guidelines

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/online-safety/information-for-industry/illegal-harms/risk-assessment-guidance-and-risk-profiles.pdf?v=388034

 

Age verification and thus ID verification would seem to be unavoidable. That would cost thousands to do and keep up with every year. Then if OffCom decide there will be reporting and auditing requirements, that will be worse.

 

The entire thing is such crap. It's not just about a bunch of middle aged musos.

Forum Communities have been built for vulnerable people - gay teenagers who cannot tell their parents, Somebody dating someone outside their religion etc etc. All amazing support groups for all types of people.

[Beedster]

32 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

Here's the risk assessment guidelines

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/online-safety/information-for-industry/illegal-harms/risk-assessment-guidance-and-risk-profiles.pdf?v=388034

 

Age verification and thus ID verification would seem to be unavoidable. That would cost thousands to do and keep up with every year. Then if OffCom decide there will be reporting and auditing requirements, that will be worse.

 

The entire thing is such crap. It's not just about a bunch of middle aged musos.

Forum Communities have been built for vulnerable people - gay teenagers who cannot tell their parents, Somebody dating someone outside their religion etc etc. All amazing support groups for all types of people.

It all feels extremely dystopian, can someone explain in simple terms the rationale for the legislation? 

[ProjeKtWEREWOLF]

6 hours ago, 12stringbassist said:

I run a Slade forum and I'm extremely worried that the talk of mirrored top hats on there breaks some Ofcom rule or other.

Code for 'Austrian Painter'?  

[Jean-Luc Pickguard]

Surely it would make more sense to bring Wheaton's law onto the statute books, then it shouldn't be a problem for the forums.

[ped]

What are you in prison for?

[fretmeister]

1 hour ago, Beedster said:

It all feels extremely dystopian, can someone explain in simple terms the rationale for the legislation? 

To prevent terrorism, child abuse and trafficking and violent porn etc

 

None of which happen on the open web anyway.

[OliverBlackman]

4 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

To prevent terrorism, child abuse and trafficking and violent porn etc

 

None of which happen on the open web anyway.

I’d be in favour of anything that would stop the above but criminals always find another way. Event companies go to huge lengths to stop touting but it still happens on a large scale for anything in demand. 

[Beedster]

10 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

To prevent terrorism, child abuse and trafficking and violent porn etc

 

None of which happen on the open web anyway.

So it’s placebo legislation and they know it is?

[Grooverjr]

13 minutes ago, Beedster said:

So it’s placebo legislation and they know it is?

That's probably the most concise definition of the majority of governmental policy and action I have seen. The internet is fundamentally ungovernable and now pretty much the entire economy globally is reliant on it there can't be any actual blocking but the whole nation state and democratic process house of cards will fall quickly if their ineffectiveness becomes too obvious so you get this kind of dog whistle legislation. The cynic in me also wonders whether Meta and their like have been whispering in ears as a way of driving more and more traffic onto their platforms where we can be data harvested and advertised to. As many others have said BC is a haven and there are no doubt countless other forums that provide vital informal mental health and wellbeing support to people in an increasingly isolated world. Proper integrated policing  and better education, support and more access to community -online or otherwise - is the real solution to keeping people safe but that takes money and time and real dedication, and puts less coin in the coffers of the big players, so it's a non starter. I hope BC and all the other decent forums find a way to keep going somehow. 

[rwillett]

I've just skimmed the Ofcom pages, all 84 pages.

 

It's draconian, bureaucratic, process intensive, intrusive and impossible to police. The fact that further guidance is still to be published will mean this Ofcom will probably have to be revised, though it does look rather thorough at the moment. 

 

The basic premise of the act is that any U2U service is capable of being used for any of 17 different crimes. So the smallest website that allows input and comments becomes a potential vehicle for any of the 17 categories. This is unenforceable in my opinion. Note that this is my opinion. 

 

Ofcom will need to increase its budget 10x or more to handle all of the workload coming through. Ain't going to happen. I would suggest that every single website asks Ofcom as many questions as possible and drowns them in paperwork. 

 

I'm also going to look at what the legislation says, if I can get it. 

 

 

[rwillett]

This looks interesting but I'm still trying to understand it. It's from Ofcom
 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/consultations/category-1-10-weeks/270826-consultation-protecting-people-from-illegal-content-online/associated-documents/consultation-at-a-glance-our-proposals-and-who-they-apply-to?v=330411

Edited Thursday at 21:30 by rwillett

[Grooverjr]

@rwillett good point about the workload of enforcement. If they have the money to spend (which they obviously don't) it could be much better spent on targetted investigation instead of enforcing blanket legislation. 

[Hellzero]

Just ask those idiots at Ofcom how will they control something impossible to control?

 

Politicians are such idiots totally disconnected from reality that they think they can control everything when they are themselves the first to break the rules.

 

This law will be repealed on the same day of its application due to impossibility of application.

 

Delirious!

[Grooverjr]

13 minutes ago, rwillett said:

This looks interesting but I'm still trying to understand it. It's from Ofcom
 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/consultations/category-1-10-weeks/270826-consultation-protecting-people-from-illegal-content-online/associated-documents/consultation-at-a-glance-our-proposals-and-who-they-apply-to?v=330411

Very interesting. Not clearly defined but I assume BC would be small, low risk and it looks like most of those required elements are already in place so maybe there is hope

[Beedster]

2 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

Just ask those idiots at Ofcom how will they control something impossible to control?

 

Politicians are such idiots totally disconnected from reality that they think they can control everything when they are themselves the first to break the rules.

 

This law will be repealed on the same day of its application due to impossibility of application.

 

Delirious!

The politicians aren’t the idiots, they know exactly what they’re doing and how (in)effective it will be. We’re the idiots for allowing them to.

[Hellzero]

Why am I even bothering? I don't even live in the U.K.

 

Ah yes, I like this community.

[Hellzero]

5 minutes ago, Beedster said:

The politicians aren’t the idiots, they know exactly what they’re doing and how (in)effective it will be. We’re the idiots for allowing them to.

I would have agreed 30 or 40 years ago, Chris...

[Beedster]

2 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

I would have agreed 30 or 40 years ago, Chris...

I mean they know that it is unworkable but don’t care. 30 or 40 years ago they would have cared more about the effectiveness of policy. OK they may not have got it right, but there was a degree of good faith even in contentious policy. Now it’s policy for sake of appearance 

[rwillett]

14 minutes ago, Beedster said:

The politicians aren’t the idiots, they know exactly what they’re doing and how (in)effective it will be. We’re the idiots for allowing them to.

I disagree that the politicians know what they are doing, they are, on the whole rather clueless about IT, but they want to be seen to be doing something and this is it. It's very much "won't somebody think of the children" and opposing this act will be played out as supporting paedophiles and terrorism. 

 

It's bad legislation, and Ofcom, who have wanted to expand their empire for some time, have taken it on with gusto. I would  suspect they have asked for a significant budget increase to handle it. I'll try and find their budget and do some simple maths to see what extra they are going to need with 100,000 extra sites to police. A similar situation occurs with the toothless winder that is the ICO, lots of words and zero action. 

 

If Ofcom is the policeman here, they will have enough to do with the bigger social media companies before they get down to basschat. 

 

The potential scope of this act is scary. Your local village bowls club, 70 members, has a chat section about where the next game is against the village five miles up the road. Is Ofcom really expecting the 76 year old chair and 90 year old treasurer to go through all of the risk profiles? And then report them to Ofcom and keep it up to date. 

 

The reputational risk to Ofcom is enormous here. Fighting a large social media company fine, fighting a local bowls club or pigeon racing or local dance class?  Not so sure. 

 

Just my 2p

 

Rob 

[Beedster]

4 minutes ago, rwillett said:

I disagree that the politicians know what they are doing, they are, on the whole rather clueless about IT, but they want to be seen to be doing something and this is it. It's very much "won't somebody think of the children" and opposing this act will be played out as supporting paedophiles and terrorism. 

 

It's bad legislation, and Ofcom, who have wanted to expand their empire for some time, have taken it on with gusto. I would  suspect they have asked for a significant budget increase to handle it. I'll try and find their budget and do some simple maths to see what extra they are going to need with 100,000 extra sites to police. A similar situation occurs with the toothless winder that is the ICO, lots of words and zero action. 

 

If Ofcom is the policeman here, they will have enough to do with the bigger social media companies before they get down to basschat. 

 

The potential scope of this act is scary. Your local village bowls club, 70 members, has a chat section about where the next game is against the village five miles up the road. Is Ofcom really expecting the 76 year old chair and 90 year old treasurer to go through all of the risk profiles? And then report them to Ofcom and keep it up to date. 

 

The reputational risk to Ofcom is enormous here. Fighting a large social media company fine, fighting a local bowls club or pigeon racing or local dance class?  Not so sure. 

 

Just my 2p

 

Rob 

When I said they know what they’re doing, that’s exactly what I meant, they have no idea about effective regulatory policy in this space so are doing this simply to be seen to be doing something 

[42Hz]

First Brexit, now brits will also have to leave the web ?

[TimR]

1 hour ago, Grooverjr said:

Very interesting. Not clearly defined but I assume BC would be small, low risk and it looks like most of those required elements are already in place so maybe there is hope

 

I've not read it yet but that's my gut feeling from what I've been seeing.

 

The number of small sports clubs and societies that have and rely on BBs amd small Web platforms runs to the thousands. 

 

You'll just need a policy in place and an audit trail to show you're following the policy. If your users step out of line then you just need a report function and then you need to show you acted on it.

 

We did find it a struggle when facebook was new to moderate our group as certain people would pile on and in some cases be malicious. But that was swiftly dealt with and people calmed down. I guess the online bullying and harassment is their main reason for clamping down. 

[Stub Mandrel]

2 hours ago, rwillett said:

This looks interesting but I'm still trying to understand it. It's from Ofcom
 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/consultations/category-1-10-weeks/270826-consultation-protecting-people-from-illegal-content-online/associated-documents/consultation-at-a-glance-our-proposals-and-who-they-apply-to?v=330411

 

The requirements for small User to User services like Basschat look light touch and I would say thry are pretty much in place.

[prowla]

Maybe the politicians have shares in VPN providers.