UK Online Safety Regulations and impact on Forums

[smallwheels]

I stand by my position that being insulted is a choice. And anyone who is insulted or offended by what strangers say on the interwebz.... well, there are "issues."

We probably can only agree to disagree here, the more as we are becoming off topic. To come back to topic and to illustrate the issue at the same time: There was a young doctor in Austria, Lisa Maria Kellermayr, who was really dedicated to her profession. During Covid she overworked a lot and sacrified lots of her private life. She did (along other things) a lot of vaccinations. She was yelled at, publically attacked in the harshest way on the internet as well as privately including death threats. This went on for many months and the police and other officials did not act or react appropriately. At some point she killed herself because she could not stand it any more. It may have been the case that she was to some degree vulnerable or mentally unstable. But was this her fault? Or was it even caused by the attacks in the first hand? It is not a personal choice to suffer from a condition and additionally everyone has his or her limit, what he or she can take. I am not willing to sacrifice a single life for the "right of random strangers to insult or threat" and call this proudly "free speech". Cases like that are not uncommon, especially with teenagers - it has cost a number of lifes over the years. I resist to say: Their problem if they were not strong enough - they had that wrong attitude. Bad luck. I'd rather say: Those that bully have the "wrong attitude" and we should stop them doing so instead to even support them with their behavior.

In terms of politics most western countries suffer from an immense amount of disinformation lately. While probably nobody wants censorship probably also nobody wants disinformation - apart from those that draw an advantage from it. The visible result at the current state is that many reasonable voices have become silent and stept back from sharing their opinion. The aggressive bullies take over bit by bit easily, as it is easy to spread fake news an lies (even easier with an army of idiots and trolls at hand), but way more work do really disprove the lie and fake news. It even turns out: They don't care - they are not interested in what's true and what not - so the "good guys" are in a loss position from the beginning. This changes culture in a miserable way. Possibly no one has a really proper solution how exactly to change that - but to say disinformation it a threat is possibly something most people would agree with. It has even been named as one of the most relevant threats by the world economic forum, who are not exactly considered to be part of the woke movement. So while I do not see the UK legislation as a good measure I agree with the intention.

 

[Dixie McCall]

Question. If I’m based in the US and a UK member posts something to my site that the UK word police don’t like, can my UK member be fined or arrested if it’s a US based forum? Of course I’m not talking about serious stuff like a terrorist threat - just a hurt-my- feelings posts.

 

[Mr Lucky]

a UK member posts something to my site that the UK word police don’t like

Don’t worry there is no such thing as the word police. You can’t believe everything you read on the internet.

Nor is there such a crime as “hurt my feelings” ditto re: what you read on the internet.

 

[chillibear]

Question. If I’m based in the US and a UK member posts something to my site that the UK word police don’t like, can my UK member be fined or arrested if it’s a US based forum? Of course I’m not talking about serious stuff like a terrorist threat - just a hurt-my- feelings posts.

Well possibly at least in theory so your UK member could fall foul of some laws, for instance the communications act it wouldn't matter that they were using your US service in that case. However it'd be very dependent on what actually happened as to the odds of securing a conviction. I suppose you might also be able to at least annoy the UK member by getting a Non-Crime Hate incident recorded against them which can impact employment opportunities. Anyhow, not a lawyer so ... salt/pinches/etc There is always an obscure law to get you if "they" really want to get you!

For the context of this thread however the UK's Online Safety Act (OSA) gives Ofcom the power to potentially fine you the service provider (not the poster) up to £18M or 10% of your worldwide profit (which ever is the larger) and you'd better pay up or, err, or something. Look just drop the money off next time you are in London okay... Although to be fair to them they do expect to "work with" anyone breaching the OSA first before getting to the fines, so expect an email rather than an invoice. How they will police the world I don't know. Obviously for those of us in the UK with very UK focused forums the dangers of falling foul of the rules are somewhat more tangible.

As to quite what exactly would constitute a breach of the OSA, well time to start ploughing through all those documents! Also you might well not be a service that falls under the OSA. All depends on how "significant" your UK userbase is. I'm still not 100% sure I know if significant means fundamentally a large number - like 000s of users or if it means you have five uses and two are in the UK making that "significant" for your service!

 

[alfaNova]

All these messages in this thread and OFCOM regulations are hurting my feelings, so XenForo should be fined

I was planning to have a global site but I hold this plan until see the actions. But a small recommendation for people in the UK is to starting with risk assessment. I think you should find an example document for risk assessment and adopt it for yourself, or creat it from scratch.

Content management can be the second stage as a result of this risk assessment. Or you may moderate all threads and messages one by one manually before publishing them. This depends on the admin's decision but it will not be easy for anyone.

This discussion will take a long time. I am sure of that. So in the meantime, you can start with risk assessment at least.

 

[alfaNova]

This isn't funny.
You'll find that Australia has a law that bans u/16's from using social media.
It's because of the pornbots and other associates causing trouble!

I didn't say this is funny, and yes I agree we should protect children. But this regulation is not only for children, and the requirement is not easy to implement. I am sure OFCOM focusing big social media, dating and networking sites. But they are not giving any exceptions or flexibility. We are not Mark Zuckerberg, so this will not be easy for us to implement everything.

 

[Suzanne O]

I didn't say this is funny, and yes I agree we should protect children. But this regulation is not only for children, and the requirement is not easy to implement. I am sure OFCOM focusing big social media, dating and networking sites. But they are not giving any exceptions or flexibility. We are not Mark Zuckerberg, so this will not be easy for us to implement everything.

You need to understand that if somebody from the UK who posts on your forum can take action against you which will result in your forum being taken down.
Especially if you don't wish to take down their posts.

The same if you have somebody that is under the age of 16 posting on your forum. It's against the law here in Australia to have minors who are under the age of 16 on social media. Some people include forums as part of the social media network. So yes you could be in deep strife.

 

[Dixie McCall]

All these messages in this thread and OFCOM regulations are hurting my feelings, so XenForo should be fined

Your hurt feelings hurt my feelings and gives me social media induced anxiety so XenForo should be punished with a fine of forty gazillion, trillion, zillions pounds and six months on a deserted island with former MP Ivor Caplin.

 

[Arantor]

What is the point of bickering over what country does what worse? Who cares!

What's important in my humble opinion is what needs to be done by affected communities.

Maybe we need a separate thread.

No point, it will just be taken over by the keyboard warriors arguing about what the word freedom means. Never mind that their posturing is actively unhelpful to those of us who do have such laws to contend with (which, last I checked, is approximately 96% of the world’s population)

 

[Arantor]

Side note: I made a post about this in a different admin community and was straight up (in the very first reply) accused of fear-mongering, which I thought was hilarious. (NB, the person doing so is American.)

I’d love to be worrying about nothing but I’ve seen what my government is like.

 

[CedricV]

Side note: I made a post about this in a different admin community and was straight up (in the very first reply) accused of fear-mongering, which I thought was hilarious. (NB, the person doing so is American.)

I’d love to be worrying about nothing but I’ve seen what my government is like.

You get shot down for anything you say on that "admin community".

 

[Mr Lucky]

Question. If I’m based in the US and a UK member posts something to my site that the UK word police don’t like, can my UK member be fined or arrested if it’s a US based forum? Of course I’m not talking about serious stuff like a terrorist threat - just a hurt-my- feelings posts.

Well possibly at least in theory so your UK member could fall foul of some laws, for instance the communications act it wouldn't matter that they were using your US service in that case. However it'd be very dependent on what actually happened as to the odds of securing a conviction. I suppose you might also be able to at least annoy the UK member by getting a Non-Crime Hate incident recorded against them which can impact employment opportunities

It's highly unlikely anyone wherever they are would fall foul of the Communications act for a post that merely "hurt someone's feelings." There does seem to be a widespread misapprehension around some laws.

However in the case of real and serious offences I believe cross border co-operation between various official government agencies is becoming much more prevalent as they finally ramp up their tech. By co-operate I don't men they are doing it as a favour to another country, I'm sure there is a quid pro quo, or tit-for-tat if you like. Especially so if terrorism or incitement is involved.

 

[Andylaser]

In an "attempt" to limit forum access to minors, is the following feasable?

Rather than simply stating "no under 18s" which will encourage the applicant to lie; have an automated system that automatically blocks them if their date of birth showns them to be under 18, then also automatically blocks their IP address to prevent a second try at signing up using different details.

If they then get a VPN to circumvent this, then it shifts blame to them for actively circumventing built in safety forum safeguards.

 

[Mr Lucky]

have an automated system that automatically blocks them if their date of birth showns them to be under 18,

The already exists.

then also automatically blocks their IP address to prevent a second try at signing up using different details.

That would go some way to stopping some under age users but I don't It would satisfy the requirements of the act for forums that it applies to in regard to effective age verification.

IP addresses are so often dynamic I don't think IP would work very well. It may well block a lot of existing users also.

 

[smallwheels]

In an "attempt" to limit forum access to minors, is the following feasable?

To hinder minors from accessing your forums you need two things:

1. a proof, that the person is over 18 years old. Which in fact can only be done via official documents
2. validation, that the person presenting the document is in fact the person that the document belongs to

The first one creates a couple of issues, technical ones as well as psychological ones. Psychologically many users probably would not want to identify themselves for just using a forum. Technically, you'd need an infrastructure. The simplest would be to use one of the existing systems that are used by banks etc - but the cost would be prohibitive for a forum. If we leave out what exists and think about what could exist it would be a kind of "clearing house" which offers a simple automated check via i.e. a checksum if a document shows a user is over 18. This would need documents, that can be used electronically (currently not a given in many if not most countries) as well as the infrastructre on the side of the user (i.e. a card reader). If then this "clearing house" with it's API would offer a binary (yes/no) answer in real time and the process would be anonymous it could work. And if it was indeed anonymous (the forum would never get the real name/identity exposed during the process and the clearing house would never get the service exposed where the user wants to prove his or her age) then the psychological barrier would also be lowered. If all that was very cheap or even free it could be a solution that would help all the small forums. However, with all the different national documents it would apart from the generally huge effort and barrier to create such a system it would become even worse if you wanted it to work internationally. Really phantasy, nothing to expect in that direction.

So possibly the easiest way currently would be to piggy back on an existing service or a website, that has already valid age checks implemented. Thus, single-sign-on using a porn site as authority instance would probably the best way. Now you only have to explain to new users why they have to register at a porn site first before they can enter your forum about bonsai trees.

 

[ForumFan]

Rather than simply stating "no under 18s" which will encourage the applicant to lie; have an automated system that automatically blocks them if their date of birth showns them to be under 18

Ummm... won't they just lie with a fabricated birthdate that puts them over 18 years? There's no practical way to truly verify anything without it being in person with something like a passport.

A lot of sites already ask if they're 18+ including my own. My site isn't for kids. Don't want them. But of course, I realize that the "qualification" is easily circumvented.

but I don't It would satisfy the requirements of the act for forums that it applies to in regard to effective age verification.

Exactly. How on Earth are you supposed to actually and legitimately verify age?? They (authorities) HAVE to know it's impossible... and is perhaps part of their plan... to eliminate small forums... and control large social media platforms. What better way to control the narrative?

Wanna borrow my tinfoil hat?

 

[Alpha1]

In an "attempt" to limit forum access to minors, is the following feasable?

There is a highly effective method that I have been running for decades on a board with hundreds of thousands of signups. Its not 100% bulletproof because nothing is, but almost everyone falls for it. Over decades of using this system I'd say its around 98% effective.
It works really well if you do not announce that the new member needs to be 18+ and just let the member register an account. Require DOB on registration.
Then the system automatically bans the account until they reach the age of 18. The member receives a friendly message explaining what happened and that they are welcome to participate after they have reached adulthood.
Some will then try to register a different account and then multiple account detectors need to identify this, so that you can ban puppet accounts.

This underage banning functionality has been implemented for me in @Xon 's Moderator Essentials addon and his Sign-up Abuse addon covers the rest. In my view these addons are critical for running a board. You can find these excellent addons here:

X

Moderator Essentials

Jun 23, 2018

Tools and Features that Improve Moderator Productivity.

• Xon
• moderator tools the essentials
• Add-ons [2.x]

X

Signup abuse detection and blocking

Nov 20, 2018

Provides a toolkit to reduce signup spam

• Xon
• Add-ons [2.x]

If this method becomes common practice then I assume this method will become less effective.

The only bulletproof way to block all underaged from viewing or registering the site is by some form of ID checking service. I think most people will not register a forum account when they need to tie it to their government issued identity, because that would breach their right to free speech. That is something that autocratic regimes love to do.

 

[Mr Lucky]

I think most people will not register a forum account when they need to tie it to their government issued identity, because that would breach their right to free speech

In what way would it breach that right?

 

[Alpha1]

In what way would it breach that right?

If everything you post is tied to your identity, then the implications are huge. it has a chilling effect on free speech. Here are some examples:

Being critical of the government, policy and government officials could allow the government officials to target you. Whistleblowers would not be able to anonymously post exposing content on forums and other platforms.
If you also consider that everything by the government gets hacked all the time, then the implications are massive. Think about foreign governments or corporations identifying and going after people for what they post on forums.

Or data brokers analyzing everything you have ever written online and then election interfering actors combine that data with the rest of your data profile, analyze with AI and use that to micro-target you and influence your voting behavior. This is a big thing. Modern day versions of Cambridge Analytica would have a field day.

The OSA is already pushing for AI analysis of content. Which IMO is very useful. But as soon as it gets tied to an ID and content on one site is tied to content by that person on all sites, then it becomes very dangerous. If all content a person writes on all platforms gets analyzed it becomes The Matrix so to speak. AI can be a big help to identify rule breaches, but if used at massive scale then there no longer can be human checks. Then it becomes a matter of trading accuracy against catching more rule breaches. Anyone interested in this topic will be interested to watch the recent Joe Rogan interview with Marc Zuckerberg where he discusses this matter and how such moderation at scale will punish innocent people. (First part of the video)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

These are just a few examples of many of how this can go wrong.

 

[Mr Lucky]

If everything you post is tied to your identity,

I doubt age verification services would tie your identity to your posts. It’s needed once to verify your age at time of registration. Privacy policies would be in place. I very much doubt any age verification service would inform any forum admin of users’ real id.

Being critical of the government, policy and government officials could allow the government officials to target you.

But your free speech right allows you to do that whether or not you have used your id to prove your age via a name verification service.

Whistleblowers would not be able to anonymously post exposing content on forums.

They could still post just as anonymously as they might have done without age verification id. With an id age checking service, no disclosure of the person's id need be made to the forum admin, let alone the forum users in general.