The Online Safety Act.

It would avoid a lot of heartache if the Starsi actually told us what we should be thinking instead of leaving us to work it out by error and trial...

More practically: is the PM function seen as a different, bigger risk than the public forum because we can use it to plot in secret and exchange information on eighty-year-old military technology? Can/could/should that be knocked on the head to reduce the mods' headaches?

 

I will watch with great interest.

 

I wasn't going to post on this thread cos as far as I'm concerned it's poor Otto who ultimately has to decide whether or not to shoulder yet another risk / potential cost. He's not profiting from this forum (or WW2F), quite the contrary he pays for us all to indulge our research and interests, after saving it from being repeatedly sold/flipped. (If it were down to me I'd just say it was great while it lasted.) So, until he has time to carefully read through the legislation implemented in a country that's not his, I'll just add this for the benefit of those who haven't been around for long and are wondering how this will affect them:

Never, in the 17 yrs I've been on here both as a member and as a moderator, have I ever seen anything serious left unaddressed. Simple as that.
(Attempts at Holocaust denial, inappropriate content, etc, etc, have been countered or removed, people have been banned, often without being noticed, let alone reported to Admin. Reports are read but not always acted upon, because not all reported content is even about rule-breaking, merely requests to move posts/merge threads and because up until now we've been allowed by Otto to act upon things as we deem best for the forum. If folks didn't like that, they didn't have to register or stick around. And yet, despite many similar forums disappearing off the internet over the last decade for various reasons, here it still is, and a lot of that had to do with the substantial contributions by Veterans as well as the help of regular members. But it now appears that some hosts are pre-emptively dropping UK-based sites like hot potatoes.)
I hope we've all done a decent enough job so far for folks to have trusted us to know what's best for the forum as well as the membership. We're not paid and have lives outside of this place.
So, before anyone expects a volunteer like me to help draw up a list of policies here which will comply with OFCOM's expectations relevant to a forum such as this, please check if you've ever read the existing Guidelines. )

 

This is the Gov link which explains it very well
Online Safety Act: explainer

I would suggest this site has been very well moderated for many years and any post/thread/member deemed unsuitable has been dealt with post haste. We already have the report a post function.
We do not have harmful content on this site. We do not encourage any unlawful content.
As members we must ensure we comply and post information that is compliant.
There are many talented individuals who frequent this site and I am sure the collective can ensure compliance.


A snippet below states “to take down illegal content when it does appear”
Which in my simple world happens already

“The Act will give providers new duties to implement systems and processes to reduce risks their services are used for illegal activity, and to take down illegal content when it does appear. “

We are here to help the Mods and each other. Perhaps a locked thread stating the act and a few bullet points to ensure we follow compliance(perhaps I have over simplified but we have to start somewhere)

 

"You make it sound a tad like we're paid to run this place" ... "demands for action".
Absolute nonsense. Irrelevant nonsense.
All Boards like this are obligated to comply with the Act.

You've misrepresented my post and my questions.

When you've all collectively stopped wasting your and members time fulminating, it's your (pl) collective, if thankless, task to get on with how to meet the compliance obligation, and to tell members what you (and they) need to do. Either that or close the site.

 

If you the hosted the forum from another country would it be subject to the UK act?

 

My understanding is yes, some sites are considering blocking UK IP addresses, so you'd have to use a VPN with another IP to access them.

 

Some purple passages are links to the ICO: not easy to discern with my £2.99 glasses.

page 23 of Risk assessment guidance:



which are those listed at footnote 41 and link to :

UK GDPR guidance and resources

Age appropriate design: a code of practice for online services

 

If you read through the thread you will see moans and groans plus good advice which the Mod team will take on board. Its a forum so it helps to discuss things for an outcome good or bad.
Its easy as an individual to say get on with it but the Mod team need help so anything constructive you can add would be appreciated.

 

Being optimistic, as long as we carry on what we're doing , members reporting dodgey stuff , us mods/admin banning & deleting crap, we should be ok shouldn't we ?

Am I being naive ?

 

Converting the official release to a less ... flashy ... format has been interesting... (veterans will know what "interesting" means). Good luck to ya.

 

Could we just sacrifice a goat while dancing widdershins around a hanged man at midnight at a crossroads?

Or is that against the rules too?

 

This is a discussion board. Accordingly took due consideration of all posts and available refs. to make two tersely worded posts to the very core of the matter.

To assume I had not read the thread through thoroughly is false.

To assume it was somehow easy for me to post as I did is also false.

Somewhere, some time, the Board will need an obviously placed clear statement on compliance.

Ends.

 

Thank you for your input.

 

Do you auto- or manually approve membership requests from the board?

If the former, moving over to the latter is a sensible first step.

Xenforo works on usergroups, so you can 'discriminate' by assigning more senior or simply 'better known' members to a bespoke usergroup with more permissions and newer/unknown members to a more restricted one.

This could, if necessary, be as draconian as forcing manual review and approval by moderators for uploads or even posts.

This is obviously undesirable in many ways, but these waters are all undesirable; we're looking for least-bad solutions.

 

♫Stand still, Woody!♫