UK Online Safety Regulations and impact on Forums

[Alvin63]

Incidentally my saved digital toolkit number is no longer accepted and it tells me I'd have to start a new one. That happened after I went on there to check something, without wanting to do the whole assessment again - ticked to say I'd saved the new number and cancelled it part way through. So is it detecting my IP address? And knows I saved one previously?! The number was accepted yesterday fine.

 

[chillibear]

ref: https://xenforo.com/community/resources/crowd-moderation.6612/

Just going back to this. If I set all users to 4 moderation points. But 2 report limits. Would this mean any report posted would automatically go for moderation. But users can't report more than two posts in any given time period (would it be 24 hours). ie would it stop a rogue user removing masses of posts by sending them all to moderation, and messing up the forum?

If the threshold is set to 4 then yes one report from one user would be enough to put the post into the approval/moderation queue.

Users can still report as many posts as they like, they could report 100 posts, or they could report one post 20 times. This tool does not limit that. What is limited is the number of times those "reports" are counted towards the (moderation) threshold.

So in your case if a single user reported the same post once you'd have a score of 4 for that post, if that single user reported that post twice you'd have a score of 8 and if that user reported that same post five times you'd still have a score of 8, not 20 (ie 5 x 4) because of the limit.

If you want to reduce the frequency of reporting you'll need to look at some of the rate limiting/throttling tools available. I forget there may even be some built into XF.

 

[Alvin63]

Thanks. Well I'll leave it as it is then just set to 4 and no permissions. It sounds too complicated ha ha. I don't know why I would need scoring when I just need things reporting! But yes might need to look into a way to restrict a rogue user reporting everything on the site.

 

[Alvin63]

The other thing I was unsure of, in the digital toolkit was "reposting and forwarding content". I ticked yes, but does it just mean reposting and forwarding it elsewhere (ie offsite) or does it include linking other posts within the forum to others?

 

[Alvin63]

Edit - it's also in the CRA as well and I've ticked yes on that, with a comment that it's only within the forum.

 

[Lee]

I'm also considering setting the age limit as 16 rather than 18. I can't see it makes a lot of difference if there's no age verification software, and means the site wouldn't exclude older teenagers who have their own pets. Not that we had any that posted. I suppose technically though, that would be seen to be encouraging children to join. 16 and 17 year olds are still children.

Still thinking about this. Probably best to set it to 18.

If you aren't verifying ages and are following all the guidance of the children's risk assessment is there any reason to not allow under 18s to contribute?

 

[zappaDPJ]

The primary functionalities of a forum are to enable discussion boards IMO

It certainly sounds reasonable

 

[Lee]

I guess that would be at least medium risk then? The AI illegal harms scanning could be useful - but then with that topic it could just flag everything possibly ...........I guess it just needs experienced moderators.

Yes, I would arrive at medium risk. It isn't often that the conversation oversteps, but it has been known. Community moderation might be helpful here, if x reports, place in the moderation queue. But again, given the sensitivity and vulnerability of some users, this can be used in a negative way.

Rather than direct messages, could you set up sub-forums for specific groups maybe? Which would be moderated?

I think I'll open access to PM's for moderators, and just place it in the terms and conditions that conversations are monitored by humans for illegal content, such as CSAM.

But didn’t the act originate under a Conservative govt?

Yes, but why let facts get in the way of a great rhetoric.

 

[Alvin63]

If you aren't verifying ages and are following all the guidance of the children's risk assessment is there any reason to not allow under 18s to contribute?

Well that's what I thought at first. But if the age is set to less than 18, it could be seen to be sending a message that it's a site for children - and attract all the types that want to groom children (in Ofcom's eyes I guess). Not that it ever did before when the age was set to 13! But. By setting it at 18 it's sending a clear message that it's not a kids site.

Can't quite decide what to do about it. I keep changing it from 16 to 18 and back again

 

[Mr Lucky]

Can't quite decide what to do about it. I keep changing it from 16 to 18 and back again

Make it 17 then.

 

[Alvin63]

I think I have to make it 18. So it can't be called a site for kids or that attracts kids. Not that it stops them joining. Confusing.

 

[Alvin63]

So what do you do about checking old threads for "bullying" type behaviour/arguments? I vaguely remember there was the odd thread in the early days were the odd remark was made. I think most things got deleted via moderation but I'm not sure. Vaguely remember two people just sorting it out between them on a thread.

 

[D.O.A.]

Anyway my view so far is, there are going to be costs involved whether just doing a child risk assessment or doing age verification. Because having read the CRA stuff, the onus is very much on you to ensure that not a single "harm" link or photo ever gets on your site. If it does, someone could tell Ofcom and you could be investigated and then it would either be costs for anything they recommend or shut down. It's about total prevention as I see it. So could mean paying for addons that have been tested to work reliably.

The AI one for illegal harms I have (which also detects links with harmful content and sends them for moderation) hasn't been fully tested by me and I don't know how it's possible to fully test it! Because I don't want to put a load of illegal harms through it!

That's truly disgusting these clowns have you all walking on eggshells in case you hurt the feelings of some safe space moron. The UK is a joke, you've elected 1984.

OFCOM and the UK government can sit on this and rotate.

 

[Alvin63]

I think it's fear of fines! But yes it is very heavy-handed. Especially for my inoccuous little forum.

 

[Alvin63]

Could someone give me some tips with permissions for turning off direct messages but leaving it so admin can still contact someone by direct message (if necessary). So I've set start direct messages to No. With receive direct messages - if I set this to "no" will they still receive them from admin or a moderator or just admin? I think admin overrides that doesn't it? Or will it matter if receive direct messages is left at yes if no one can send them?

Also new member permissions. Is there anything in permissions for stopping them posting links and photos? Or does this have to be done via the spam filter for the first three posts?

Also what is "create new content tag"? I've always ignored that before and just left it as yes Can't see any tags. But then I have tagging disabled in ACP so is the permission irrelevant?

Currently I have the registered user group set up for new members of two weeks or so many points.
Then a further user group that adds further permissions after 2 weeks or so many points (originally to stop new members voting in competitions)

 

[Alvin63]

Age and dob users can toggle on or off. No way of stopping them….
You can default it as off but they can put it back on, which is frustrating to say the least

But if you turn off "edit profile" in permissions and it's set as off to default, presumably they can't toggle it back on again? Or would that also stop them adding a signature?

 

[rogerl]

The UK is a joke, you've elected 1984.

OFCOM and the UK government can sit on this and rotate.

It doesn't really matter who we elect. This law was created by the previous (Conservative) government and is being implemented by the current (Labour) government. Enough politics anyway, I will save that for another thread.

 

[Mr Lucky]

Or will it matter if receive direct messages is left at yes if no one can send them?

That should be fine, although I’m using xon’s conversation essentials that does allow admin to override I think.

 

[Alvin63]

Thanks. I think so too. If no-one can start a message, then they can only reply if admin contacts them.

Anyway got my permissions sorted again.

I'm just debating over the spam filter thing for preventing links by new users. But presumably if a new user posted a link, it would send their post for manual approval? Which might not get seen straight away and could put new users off. Is there no way in ACP to prevent a certain user group from posting links?

 

[Mr Lucky]

I'm just debating over the spam filter thing for preventing links by new users. But presumably if a new user posted a link, it would send their post for manual approval?

You can choose manual approval or reject. I have this for links: