The Online Safety Act

Status
Not open for further replies.

Number_25

Wears Tim Cahill pyjamas
Just reading up on the Online Safety Act.


It's obvious that they're going for forums. GamingForLinux just ceased operations because of their concerns.

How are you feeling about it @GrandOldTeam
 

Just reading up on the Online Safety Act.


It's obvious that they're going for forums. GamingForLinux just ceased operations because of their concerns.

How are you feeling about it @GrandOldTeam
linux users should have their hard drives investigated
 
As a method to stop certain vile acts, this feels like it's a decade+ or more too late, as are most things internet-safety related.

As a punishment to virtually all communities, regardless of what/how they operate, it feels a bit heavy handed, but I suppose it'll be good/better in the long run? Safety is important after all. You'd think the catalyst in this would've been the numerous other times this has happened since the mid 2000s, recently Kik, Snapchat, etc., but the action comes so much later once again.

As someone who's responsible for internal ISO auditing/risk planning etc. - I don't envy what you'll have to do here, D, but it is what it is.
 
Had a few football forum owners from other clubs contact me in a bit of a panic about this - prompted by examples like you gave. Here's another.

With specific ref to GOT, in short, it's additional expense and admin to formalise what we already do. [Edit] there might also be a few changes, like removing DM facility.
RTG/their owner seems to have a different stance on the possibilities of continuing operations. I believe both forums use the same platform. Can you elaborate a bit on why you see things differently?
 
RTG/their owner seems to have a different stance on the possibilities of continuing operations. I believe both forums use the same platform. Can you elaborate a bit on why you see things differently?

I can only share my own view and interpretation on the matter.

I don't see the act as any existential threat to this forum. Instead, I see it as an additional layer of expense and administration to formalise what we already do. There will likely be some adjustments required to ensure compliance—quick examples being changes to direct messaging services and the CA forum, which might no longer function as they do now due to increased risk, but I don't believe the act would prevent our operation as an Everton forum. Maybe the better question would be, why would it?

Our risk is relatively low compared to most platforms, and our moderation standards are significantly higher than the vast majority of forums out there. For instance, we don’t even allow swearing here. Practices like moderating posts from new members before they go live, robust post-reporting and action systems, and even using AI to detect toxicity (something fewer than 1% of forums utilise).

I do think the act may lead some websites to block access for UK users because compliance won’t be worth their effort. We’ll likely see “Online Safety” sections—or similar—added to the footer of every site, akin to privacy policies, with largely boilerplate text. It will demand both money and time to achieve compliance, likely even more so than GDPR did, which also generated a lot of initial concern.

[Edit] The added expense and administrative burden will lead some forum owners to give up entirely—and honestly, I can’t blame them. Especially if their starting block is much further behind GOT which would add bigger infrastructure change.
 

DM can be useful though. Would not be hard, surely to have no DM for those below 18 years, or have AI make privileges revoked for those using dm with toxic intent?

(Speaking as someone who has had 2 FB bans, one for saying to a friend "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" and another for simply using the word "fag" instead of cigarette - I wouldn't put too much faith in AI algorithms just yet!)
 
DM can be useful though. Would not be hard, surely to have no DM for those below 18 years, or have AI make privileges revoked for those using dm with toxic intent?

(Speaking as someone who has had 2 FB bans, one for saying to a friend "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" and another for simply using the word "fag" instead of cigarette - I wouldn't put too much faith in AI algorithms just yet!)

You have to be 16+ to use the forum at all, nevermind the DM facility.

AI is a useful, additional safeguard which we use on here to discourage/prevent toxicity around language - and the data shows it helps, but relying on it would be folly.

Awaiting clarity on the DM element. For 10+ years we've sought to safeguard DMs by denying guests/new members ability to use the DM facility until they're verified members and there's a report function beneath every DM which would bring it to our attention but awaiting clarity as to whether that's sufficient.
 

DM can be useful though. Would not be hard, surely to have no DM for those below 18 years, or have AI make privileges revoked for those using dm with toxic intent?

(Speaking as someone who has had 2 FB bans, one for saying to a friend "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" and another for simply using the word "fag" instead of cigarette - I wouldn't put too much faith in AI algorithms just yet!)
I presume that DMs are not private and can be viewed by moderators too?

I took a few weeks off the forum and had a message from another member asking if all was OK which I appreciated very much (I was thoroughly fed up of Everton and wanted a bit of an online detox). It would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater and lose things like that.
 
I presume that DMs are not private and can be viewed by moderators too?

They can't, unless reported.

I took a few weeks off the forum and had a message from another member asking if all was OK which I appreciated very much (I was thoroughly fed up of Everton and wanted a bit of an online detox). It would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater and lose things like that.

I don't think we'll need to. I'm pretty sure as a small site, we don't need to;

1739799830928.webp

^ That's not us.

We already have Cloudflare too, so we can always just enable this;

 
They can't, unless reported.



I don't think we'll need to. I'm pretty sure as a small site, we don't need to;

View attachment 295280

^ That's not us.

We already have Cloudflare too, so we can always just enable this;

That's good news. I don't envy you the task of sorting all the red tape on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top