Spadge Vernacular
Player Valuation: £70m
Grand old CurrentsPlease setup a politics forum and I'll signpost the CA forum here to it.
Grand old CurrentsPlease setup a politics forum and I'll signpost the CA forum here to it.
It's not about putting big boy pants on.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 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.Again, just ignore them. The answer isn't to shut everything down.
It's absolutely his, and I'm not telling him what to do. At no point in this thread have I done so.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.
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.Hmm.
The thing is, the bigger platforms are the ones most resilient.
Some wider context below from a forum that's closing;
If only I had the technical know-how, time or money.
I'm not trying to pick a fight here mate.
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.
www.readytogo.net
"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.
People can be incredibly crappy. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the solution.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
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 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.

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.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.
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.
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.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.



Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.