• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

  • Thank you to everyone who reached out with concern about the upcoming UK legislation which requires online communities to be compliant regarding illegal content. As a result of hard work and research by members of this community (chiefly iainbhx) and other members of communities UK-wide, the decision has been taken that the Sea Lion Press Forum will continue to operate. For more information, please see this thread.

This forum may be closing down in March 2025

Status
Not open for further replies.
JustasAmbru said:
Oh come on now, surely what I said isn't stupid. Optimism does not equal stupidity.
Click to expand...

For one example, the legislation as written may potentially require the forum to have an automated screening system to scan uploaded images for illegal content, as parts of it appear to be written with an assumption that social media sites will have one anyway. Obviously that's a ridiculously over the top and expensive thing to try and implement for here, and begs an honest question of how a volunteer moderation team is supposed to legally obtain the required training images (and how you distinguish between 'independent forum moderator' and 'nonce posing as an independent forum moderator).

I say potentially there because a lot of things are awaiting guidance on whether they're required, which isn't due until the end of the month, which frankly is a ludicrously short notice period.
 
Alex Richards said:
For one example, the legislation as written may potentially require the forum to have an automated screening system to scan uploaded images for illegal content, as parts of it appear to be written with an assumption that social media sites will have one anyway. Obviously that's a ridiculously over the top and expensive thing to try and implement for here, and begs an honest question of how a volunteer moderation team is supposed to legally obtain the required training images (and how you distinguish between 'independent forum moderator' and 'nonce posing as an independent forum moderator).

I say potentially there because a lot of things are awaiting guidance on whether they're required, which isn't due until the end of the month, which frankly is a ludicrously short notice period.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't like the idea of governments and large corpos suggesting screen scanning technology to be used on every website. Like if the whole dead internet theory becoming true wasn't dystopian enough, now guys like me have to deal with this. And how do I know what I consider ''illegal content'' and what these guys consider ''illegal content'' is the same thing with the same definition? This has 'suspicious' written all over it.
 
Last edited:
JustasAmbru said:
Yeah I don't like the idea of governments and large corpos suggesting screen scanning technology to be used on every website. Like if the whole dead internet theory becoming true wasn't dystopian enough, now guys like me have to deal with this. And how to I know what I consider ''illegal content'' and what these guys consider ''illegal content'' is the same thing with the same definition? This has 'suspicious' written all over it.
Click to expand...

Oh the actual content being targeted isn't in question here since it's abuse images, it's the practicalities.

They're not talking about copyright or what have you at all here.
 
Lemon flavoured said:
Well, not yet. It would be relatively easy for a future government to add to what was covered. The first thing would probably be things like graphic pictures of warzones.
Click to expand...

Except to be comparable it would be making it explicitly illegal to share such images. Which I suspect would have a rather higher barrier to get passed.
 
Alex Richards said:
Except to be comparable it would be making it explicitly illegal to share such images. Which I suspect would have a rather higher barrier to get passed.
Click to expand...

Some graphic images of warzones are probably illegal anyway but governments love a new law.
 
Very much hope this is resolved. Will miss this forum deeply if it is not. Will certainly write to my MP.
Mark said:
It is getting more press
New Scientist behind a paywall
www.newscientist.com

Hundreds of small websites may shut down due to UK's Online Safety Act

Hundreds of community websites run for fans of everything from cycling to Sunderland AFC may be forced to shut down by the UK's Online Safety Act, which is designed to protect children from harmful content
www.newscientist.com www.newscientist.com

The main text is from the LFGSS which is the site which first gave reasons but other are quoted


and Sealion Press is mentioned
Click to expand...
The fact that the example they pick in the headline is a sunderland afc football forum and then further down they mention SLP makes me worry that I am sleep writing New Scientist articles.
 
To summarise, @Meadow and people in the mod team and others are looking at this.

A lot of it hangs on two things, the guidance that will come out at the end of this month which will clarify matters and if the interpretation that a first finding of non-compliance would be only a warning. However, even at that point you will have to supply some compliance documents which currently don't exist.

I am working on the risk register. I have some commercial experience of risk registers including ones that touch on regulatory matters such as GDPR and Cybersecurity standards assessment. They aren't just check box jobs that can be handwaved you have to briefly demonstrate how you came to that conclusion. We will need one of these to stand any chance of compliance, plus also new T&Cs which reflect the new legislation. We'll also possibly need to make a few more changes specifically to protect minors, we'll need to see if the internal logging is good enough to act as an action log and we may have to make some moderation changes. Best of all, all of these need a bloody change register to reflect if they have been reviewed every time new guidance comes into place.
 
Gary Oswald said:
Very much hope this is resolved. Will miss this forum deeply if it is not. Will certainly write to my MP.

The fact that the example they pick in the headline is a sunderland afc football forum and then further down they mention SLP makes me worry that I am sleep writing New Scientist articles.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting how they picked out SeaLion - perhaps we have a New Scientist journalist reading this forum.
 
fanofeverything25 said:
why dont you oh font know, change your TOS to comply?
Click to expand...
Because it's more than just merely changing the TOS, something which has been discussed at length and which holds a lot of ambiguity in its specifics, specifics which will only be known at the end of this month - and would give SLP only a month to digest and implement if there's enough wiggle room for the site to actually exist
 
maybe you can do a preemptive change? like make a general guess of what exactly those guidelines are (kinda in a broad strokes way ) and put some guardrails in place so that you guys have more than month to execute them?

and the things that dont involve the TOS (IE like restricting access to minors or removing any offensive/graphic content that could tick off OFCOM/ the other regulators in the UK for example) can be done on the spot so that those can be dealt with
 
Last edited:
fanofeverything25 said:
maybe you can do a preemptive change? like make a general guess of what exactly those guidelines are (kinda in a broad strokes way ) and put some guardrails in place so that you guys have more than month to execute them?

and the things that dont involve the TOS (IE like restricting access to minors or removing any offensive/graphic content that could tick off OFCOM/ the other regulators in the UK for example) can be done on the spot so that those can be dealt with
Click to expand...
No, they really can't just be done on the spot.

SLP would have to scan every image uploaded, URL posted, and DM made for every single one of the 130 priority offences outlined in the OSA, and have the site owner register as a responsible person and file for compliance. This costs actual money, quite a lot of actual money, as it's a massive technical and time ask on any website, and puts the risk and liability for non-compliance on the site owner. As well as this, the site ownership is made liable for any offences, as well as requiring the moderation team to respond to reported content in a 'timely manner'.

When it comes to the question of minors, the forum would not simply have to restrict minors, but ID every single member and either store their IDs or have a recurring ID test, which increases costs and technical requirements to comply with the new can of GDPR worms that are opened by this, as well as questions around the facial recognition tests.

This is why discussion is about lobbying, attending consultations, and hoping that the regs that go into effect in March are softened to exempt forums like this or are delayed until something more workable is made. Because what is being asked if something that SLP has neither the money or manpower to actually implement.
 
cant you guys still prevent the regs from becoming law till? like tell them to outright scrap the bill and prevent those regs from taking effect at ALL?

i suggest you and other forums based in the UK should stage and organize some sort of blackout. no one has access to the entire site for a day and its instead a page in black explaining the law and its potential effects to site users and telling people to ask lawmakers to scrap it if there the UK and resources to help if you're in another country. maybe even get some bigger forums/sites that are UK based but are not subject by these laws to do this as well in order to create a bigger impact.

in the US when the infamous Stop Online Piracy Act was about to take affect, many sites from Reddit to Wikipedia did that and it got so much attention that the gov eventually killed the bill when the sponsors of it dropped out and withdrew their support for the law because of the very public backlash they were getting thanks to that bill. similar coalition of non profits , sites, and companies based in the UK do a blackout like this the, if this d creates the same effect that the US did hopefully the gov will realize that what there doing is actually shite and backpedal just like how the US did if a
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top