UK Online Safety Regulations and impact on Forums

From your link.

"This included asking how the platform was implementing age checks and, specifically, about the effectiveness of OnlyFans’ third-party facial estimation technology."

"On 4 January 2024, Fenix learned from its technology provider that the challenge age for OnlyFans was in fact set at 20 years old, not 23 years old. Fenix later confirmed it had been set to 20 since 1 November 2021. After learning this, Fenix elected to raise the challenge age to 23 on 16 January 2025, but then changed it again to 21 years old on 19 January 2025. Fenix only first informed Ofcom about the error on 22 January 2024."

The fine would have been much higher than the million and a bit quoted, but was reduced by 30% because Fenix settled out of court.

"After Fenix identified the error, it took over two weeks for the company to report the issue to Ofcom. While we acknowledge that Fenix ultimately self-reported the issue to us, we expect companies to inform us of any possible contraventions as soon as possible, which did not happen in this case."

So they self reported two weeks after they found the error and still got fined! Even though members were definitely over 18.

"Taking all the evidence into account, our investigation concluded that Fenix contravened its duties to provide accurate and complete information to Ofcom in response to two statutory information requests."

So if you get investigated you have to act quick then and provide complete and accurate info!

To be fair though, it is a porn site so they were going to be heavy on them.

"At the time the investigations into OnlyFans were first launched, the platform said a “coding configuration issue” around its age verification tools had led to the reporting error and that it was confident it had always met its obligations to protect under-18s from accessing restricted material."
 
Last edited:
Either way, lets take your apparent view 'failing' websites are inconsequential to close, I personally think its a great loss if a decade or two of material is lost because of a bad law.

That’s not my apparent view at all. Forums that are dead or dying, and let’s be honest there are a lot of those. Are using the OSA as an excuse to shut up shop. That’s my view.

When I see thriving forum communities shutting, now that would be sad, but no one has yet pointed to any,
 
That’s not my apparent view at all. Forums that are dead or dying, and let’s be honest there are a lot of those. Are using the OSA as an excuse to shut up shop. That’s my view.
It's a legit cost-benefit analysis for them. If keeping a dying forum costs them $20/month to maintain versus spending $100s/$1000s to be OSA compliant
 
It's a legit cost-benefit analysis for them. If keeping a dying forum costs them $20/month to maintain versus spending $100s/$1000s to be OSA compliant

I agree, and who really wants to run a dying forum. So it becomes a convenient time to close. I just can't see many, if any, thriving forums being forced to close. But I suppose that 'yet' could be added to the sentence. We'll have to see how it goes. .
 
That’s not my apparent view at all. Forums that are dead or dying, and let’s be honest there are a lot of those. Are using the OSA as an excuse to shut up shop. That’s my view.

When I see thriving forum communities shutting, now that would be sad, but no one has yet pointed to any,
They're not using it as an excuse! They wouldn't have closed if it hadn't been for the OSA. Maybe some of them would have closed at some point but this pushed them into feeling it was too much responsibility. That's just denial of the onerous effect this act has had on small communities that are perhaps run by a single volunteer and non profit-making. They are maybe using free forum software most of them and the only costs would be a server previously. It's just for people to communicate and the whole Ofcom process is intimidating to the average person IMO

The Act has changed things. Previously TOS put the responsibility onto the user/member not to do various things or breach the rules. The OSA overrides a site's TOS and firmly puts all the onus on the site owner to ensure their members (or anyone else) doesn't do something listed in the primary priority illegal harms and priority illegal harms. It has designated "bullying" as an illegal harm for example and who is to determine what is bullying online if two people disagree? And members could complain of bullying or having their freedom of speech restricted if the owner bans them for saying something.

In my view this Act has set site users against site owners and changed that relationship and authority basis permanently. It has empowered site users and disempowered site owners.

Some of these small community forums are scared IMO
 
No that has nothing to do with OSA.
Well it does, because if someone can click on a link that leads outside your site, and the site it leads to contains some perceived illegal harm, then the site owner is responsible. Just as if a spammer posted an inappropriate link. If the link led to a site that technically wasn't suitable for children - which could be very wide ranging.

For example some of the articles on the page I left online, were referenced to verify the information. There was a warning above some of those references to say that some of the research articles linked, described experiments on animals. That is how medical research is done - experimentation on animals like hamsters and guinea pigs. The research articles are clinical and talk about dissection and euthanasia. A warning isn't enough. The links could lead to something potentially harmful to a child if clicked on. And that site would be responsible for linking them. What I did was type the referenced links out so they were no longer hyperlinks.

It was a food article - some foods are harmful to hamsters and you can't just say they are, you have to prove it, with references to research. For it to be a valid, reliable article.
 
Last edited:
Maybe some of them would have closed at some point but this pushed them into feeling it was too much responsibility.
One of my forums is like that. It's just hanging on while the ad revenue is high than the server costs. At first when OSA came to my attention we considered that to be the nail in the coffin to avoid the complication. The fact was I went through the hoops for my other two forums so it's only staying due to that.
 
Well it does, because if someone can click on a link that leads outside your site, and the site it leads to contains some perceived illegal harm, then the site owner is responsible.
Do you mean you may have links on your hamster site to illegal harm? If that's the case you needed better moderation anyway. But if you think there are then it would be easy enough to remove or disable all links. There may even be a service that can detect nefarious links. Maybe even an affordable one!
 
Do you mean you may have links on your hamster site to illegal harm? If that's the case you needed better moderation anyway. But if you think there are then it would be easy enough to remove or disable all links. There may even be a service that can detect nefarious links. Maybe even an affordable one!
I updated the post above to explain.
 
Most of the links were to youtube. The site was heavy with embedded youtube videos - perfectly safe youtube videos of peoples hamsters - but - it's a direct link to youtube and all other youtube videos.

You can watch an embedded youtube video directly on youtube - which then comes up with other suggestions and shows currently trending videos - of all kinds of topics.
 
Do you mean you may have links on your hamster site to illegal harm? If that's the case you needed better moderation anyway. But if you think there are then it would be easy enough to remove or disable all links. There may even be a service that can detect nefarious links. Maybe even an affordable one!
The answer to that is - I don't know. I doubt it but I wouldn't want to check every single link eveyr posted. Under priority harms it classes all sorts as unsuitable for children. One example being injured animals.
 
You can watch an embedded youtube video directly on youtube - which then comes up with other suggestions and shows currently trending videos - of all kinds of topics.
But doesn't Youtube itself have (non-effective) age verification, I would have thought that covers you. maybe not
One example being injured animals.
Unless it's animal cruelty I don't see the problem provided you warn parental guidance (Watershed Down is now PG). Look at any vet documentary, it is allowed on TV and would have a PG warning if required.

I do understand your concerns though even if it sounds like I don't.
 
The answer to that is - I don't know. I doubt it but I wouldn't want to check every single link eveyr posted. Under priority harms it classes all sorts as unsuitable for children. One example being injured animals.
Which would have meant also going through all the photos every uploaded. Occasionally someone would post about a sick hamster - and the photo could be upsetting to a child. But the fact is - I don't remember and couldn't be going through thousands of threads. Easier to just take the forum offline. It isn't deleted - just offline.
 
But doesn't Youtube itself have (non-effective) age verification, I would have thought that covers you. maybe not

Unless it's animal cruelty I don't see the problem provided you warn parental guidance (Watershed Down is now PG). Look at any vet documentary, it is allowed on TV and would have a PG warning if required.

I do understand your concerns though even if it sounds like I don't.
Thanks. Youtube is an issue for all parents. It's up to the parent to set a filter so a child can only access age suitable content - but it is literally a button to tap and the kids just turn it on again!

Obviously there was no animal cruelty on the site, but the OSA wording is graphic images of injured animals. Who determines what is graphic is another matter. But a hamster with an eye popping out or a large red lump, is not nice for anyone to look at. Sometimes people would post a memorial to a hamster that had passed but I always made sure there were no photos of a dead hamster on the site.

People talk about all sorts in posts. I think snake forums would have a bigger problem! They feed baby hamsters to snakes. Something that was occasionally mentioned on the hamster forum.
 
Anyway - some content could be considered unsuitable for children so it would need age verification if started up again. Because I personally, would find a full child risk assessment too onerous. The basic risk assessment was doable.

It would be good to know Ofcom's definition of read-only though. I'll see if I can find the questionnaire that showed it only fell outside the legislation of there were no hyperlinks (as well as no user to user interaction).
 
Age Verification update:

Heard back from Shufti and they won't do the upfront payment by instalments unless its a much larger annual amount. So it would be $700 upfront to cover the first $700 worth of verifications. So not an option here.

Heard back from Luciditi who sent a video about their age verification (linked) and offered a "short meeting". Theirs is face scanning and I'm not keen on that option now. The Only Friends site used that and how can face scanning tell the difference between an 18 year old and a 17 year old? Plus no pricing for it as yet.

"At Luciditi, we provide a DIATF certified and Ofcom (Online Safety Act) compliant age verification solution. You can view more information about our verification process here:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
."

Heard back from Verifymy with their API documentation. Just reading it.
 
At the moment I've come to the conclusion that age verification software probably isn't an option here. With the responsibility to ensure an API is correctly programmed so the age verification is correctly working.
 
Well done for persevering and finding out all this, I gave up after contacting verify my and getting no response. I considered it moot though once I realised it doesn’t (yet) apply outside of porn but I can see how it may help a risk assessment. Did you get any info on how it might integrate with xenForo?
 
As for youtube videos. It would be good if Xenforo could implement the ability to upload videos so they are embedded, without needing to upload them somewhere else and post a link.
 
Back
Top Bottom