UK Online Safety Regulations and impact on Forums

I will stick to what I have now... good old people moderating. I like profanity and people being allowed to say what they think within the guidelines I have in place for common-sense, basically the law, and not causing havoc. None of this affects me from the sounds of it... as I don't have that amount of users at once. I think only the largest of social networks would have those numbers.
 
Anthony Parsons said:
I will stick to what I have now... good old people moderating.
Click to expand...
That’s what I also have:

Baby Boomers Internet GIF
 
Last edited:
Anthony Parsons said:
I will stick to what I have now... good old people moderating. I like profanity and people being allowed to say what they think within the guidelines I have in place for common-sense, basically the law, and not causing havoc. None of this affects me from the sounds of it... as I don't have that amount of users at once. I think only the largest of social networks would have those numbers.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a profanity filter for guests that completely removes the word/phrase instead of replacing it with ****.

Confuse it.
 
🔥Iggy🔥 said:
13. Drugs and psychoactive substances

for example why that tho? it seems like theres a few that are more disclaimer than they required but ive still only glanced so i wondered why...some of it seems spot on but its alot to understand of course
Click to expand...
If I had to take a guess, drugs is broad to cover pharmaceuticals, so that if there ever is a particular drug that we must inject (or take), or else, there can be no discussion or, dissent rather, against it.
 
frm said:
Perhaps a profanity filter for guests that completely removes the word/phrase instead of replacing it with ****.

Confuse it.
Click to expand...
There is one of those built in.
I have other words to confuse with low level swearing for the rest.
@BIG LLC has a similar thing as me. In fact he told me to do it this way.
Because he didn't like all the swearing.
 
eva2000 said:
You're required to address all 17 of the items in your assessment
Click to expand...
oh ok, thank you to clarify i wasnt sure if they put that in or someone else...the opening info was more vague..

frm said:
If I had to take a guess, drugs is broad to cover pharmaceuticals, so that if there ever is a particular drug that we must inject (or take), or else, there can be no discussion or, dissent rather, against it.
Click to expand...
yeah i mean its pretty broad.....sugar can be psychoactive at the right dosage lol.....theres entire category of nootropics and legal substances etc...which are also drugs....

it gets too much of a free speech issue and im curious how sites like discord will try to police every word people say....or yes how well other countries will like this its a cheeky move really but wow. its hard to think really how hard they will go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frm
🔥Iggy🔥 said:
13. Drugs and psychoactive substances
Click to expand...
frm said:
If I had to take a guess, drugs is broad to cover pharmaceuticals, so that if there ever is a particular drug that we must inject (or take), or else, there can be no discussion or, dissent rather, against it.
Click to expand...
It means basically anything that makes you high or alters your consciousness that is not food, medicines, alcohol, nicotine, tobacco, caffeine.
I assume they mean 'drugs' as any substance defined in the UK Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (similar to drugs banned in other countries) and 'psychoactive substances' as any substance defined in the UK Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. Wikipedia correctly sums it up as follows:
The law defines as a "psychoactive substance" anything which "by stimulating or depressing the person’s central nervous system ... affects the person’s mental functioning or emotional state". The law bans all such substances but exempts alcohol, tobacco or nicotine-based products, caffeine, food and drink, medicinal products and any drug that is already regulated under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Click to expand...
Good luck trying to censor talk about that.
 
Last edited:
frm said:
If you're so worried about all these things, simply restructure your corporation if you have more than 1 forum. Have a holding company and each forum its own company owned by the holding company. When, and if, they go after a forum, sell it off to another company, that you obviously own. You could have them chasing you in court for years, tying up the legal system, to the point where a teeny forum isn't worth gunning for.
Click to expand...
Judges are wise to such things. Play that game after they say not to, and they can end up in jail for contempt. It might also be grounds for piercing the corporate veil, and then they end up with the liability being theirs personally.
 
MySiteGuy said:
Judges are wise to such things. Play that game after they say not to, and they can end up in jail for contempt. It might also be grounds for piercing the corporate veil, and then they end up with the liability being theirs personally.
Click to expand...
Registered agents come to mind until the IRS BOI comes into effect... (if it's not completely overturned). And, by the 3rd time you do it, you probably held them up for a year or more at corporate speed. This will cost them more. Then, simply comply if they really want to spend that much time and effort.
 
I can’t see too much to worry about here. We have to carry out a risk assessment and apply content moderation, that seems to be the gist of it. Aren’t we doing those things anyway, maybe just without the documentation?
 
Lee said:
I can’t see too much to worry about here. We have to carry out a risk assessment and apply content moderation, that seems to be the gist of it. Aren’t we doing those things anyway, maybe just without the documentation?
Click to expand...
This.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom