UK Online Safety Regulations and impact on Forums

Anthony Parsons said:
Forums are not part of that
Click to expand...
I thought under the Australian legislation Forums did count as Social Media? I was sure when I skimmed it that was the case, awesome if not. I didn't delve in too deeply since I thought he UK OSA was probably going to be more draconian and we had that covered. Although I should probably find time to go back over it in more detail.

Suzanne O said:
We're told not to allow kids who are under the age of 16.
It's an actual law that makes it a ok because their parents need to supervise them on the internet.

For example their parents take hold of any facebook group they might be in for any sporting group, scouting group, etc until their kids turn 16.
Kids actually get emailed often now which is better.
Click to expand...
So does that mean Australia put the emphasis on parents rather than service providers. So if I understand you correctly you as a Forum owner don't need to do anything technical (unlike the UK Online Safety Act) to prevent under 16s it's all the parent's responsibility to prevent the child from breaking the law? That must be a relief. So if someone under 16 is using your forum it's their parents' necks on the line not yours.
 
chillibear said:
I thought under the Australian legislation Forums did count as Social Media?
Click to expand...
The emphasis is currently on major platforms which now includes Reddit, a platform that many would consider a forum. My understanding is that while small niche forums appear to meet the same criteria as Reddit (based on the wording of the legislation)...
  • The sole or significant purpose is to enable online social interaction.
  • It allows users to interact with some or all other users.
  • It allows users to post material.
...they are currently exempt because the regulator has determined it's impossible to police millions of small sites. I did notice 4chan is also exempt which I do find surprising.
 
I could end up having u/16's bullying other u/16's on my forum which wouldn't be any good.
So it's better to adopt what the law has in place than being sorry about it later.
zappaDPJ said:
The emphasis is currently on major platforms which now includes Reddit, a platform that many would consider a forum. My understanding is that while small niche forums appear to meet the same criteria as Reddit (based on the wording of the legislation)...
  • The sole or significant purpose is to enable online social interaction.
  • It allows users to interact with some or all other users.
  • It allows users to post material.
...they are currently exempt because the regulator has determined it's impossible to police millions of small sites. I did notice 4chan is also exempt which I do find surprising.
Click to expand...
4Chan is a chatroom but yes it needs to be put under the same umbrella and Esafety are onto them as well.
 
chillibear said:
I thought under the Australian legislation Forums did count as Social Media?
Click to expand...
Nope. They are very straight forward in the applicable sites. Nothing hidden. They are not interested in sites hosting small numbers of Australians, especially if you consider how many will be under 16. If you ran a forum specifically for kids, then it may become a specific target, and only IF that forum had thousands of Australian kids online all the time. Everyone else, they don't care. Just look at the services that aren't age-restricted. Those are much bigger for under 16 than any forum specifically with Australian users is going to be. Discord and Steam Chat... WTF? Two places you will find most kids, especially compared to Facebook, which most kids don't use nowadays. Instagram and Tiktok are probably the two biggest platforms for Australian kids.
  • eSafety does not have a formal role in declaring which services are age-restricted social media platforms. In the absence of any rules made by the Minister of Communications specifying a service is either an age-restricted social media platform or not an age-restricted social media platform, any determination that a service is or is not an age-restricted social media platform is a matter for the court.
  • eSafety will not be considering every service. eSafety continues to focus on those services with the greatest number of Australian users under the age of 16 and will consider, among other factors, the services’ use of features and functions associated with risks of harm to children, and whether the service already has established practices to prevent under-16s in Australia from having accounts (for example, where the service applies and enforces a minimum age of 18).

Services eSafety considered were age-restricted social media platforms​

Services eSafety considered were not age-restricted social media platforms​

 
Anthony Parsons said:
Nope. They are very straight forward in the applicable sites. Nothing hidden. They are not interested in sites hosting small numbers of Australians, especially if you consider how many will be under 16. If you ran a forum specifically for kids, then it may become a specific target, and only IF that forum had thousands of Australian kids online all the time. Everyone else, they don't care. Just look at the services that aren't age-restricted. Those are much bigger for under 16 than any forum specifically with Australian users is going to be. Discord and Steam Chat... WTF? Two places you will find most kids, especially compared to Facebook, which most kids don't use nowadays. Instagram and Tiktok are probably the two biggest platforms for Australian kids.
  • eSafety does not have a formal role in declaring which services are age-restricted social media platforms. In the absence of any rules made by the Minister of Communications specifying a service is either an age-restricted social media platform or not an age-restricted social media platform, any determination that a service is or is not an age-restricted social media platform is a matter for the court.
  • eSafety will not be considering every service. eSafety continues to focus on those services with the greatest number of Australian users under the age of 16 and will consider, among other factors, the services’ use of features and functions associated with risks of harm to children, and whether the service already has established practices to prevent under-16s in Australia from having accounts (for example, where the service applies and enforces a minimum age of 18).

Services eSafety considered were age-restricted social media platforms​

Services eSafety considered were not age-restricted social media platforms​

Click to expand...
Except they all are aged restricted. It's now law that no child under the age of 16 is allowed on social media.
Problem is you get DM'd by morons wanting to groom kids :rolleyes:
🤦‍♀️
 
Suzanne O said:
It's now law that no child under the age of 16 is allowed on social media.
Click to expand...
No, its not. It is now law that no child under the age of 16 is allowed to use Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, Tiktok, Twitch, X and Youtube. That is the law. Everything else, COPPA applies, 13 years of age. Unless a court has specifically ruled that a website meets the criteria, then COPPA is the law and 16 years only applies to the above, it is NOT a blanket ban.
 
So not OSA and Ofcom but I see the ICO have fined Reddit some £14M for processing children's data. Since it all seems to fall into the general pile of regulations I thought you might find it interesting to read.

ico.org.uk

Reddit issued with £14.47m fine for children’s privacy failures

Our investigation found Reddit, Inc. (Reddit) used children’s personal information unlawfully.
ico.org.uk ico.org.uk

I must admit it's not totally clear from a quick read it's not completely clear. It seems to say they should have been checking everyone's ages for years, but only started after the OSA came into force. So it seems the fine is because of a data processing fault, in their statement they say
Let me be clear. Companies operating online services likely to be accessed by children have a responsibility to protect those children by ensuring they’re not exposed to risks through the way their data is used. To do this, they need to be confident they know the age of their users and have appropriate, effective age assurance measures in place.
Click to expand...
Which would imply that however Reddit were processing the data did put them (children) at risk? I would guess that has to mean because Reddit would do recommended content based on other viewed content (this history being personal data) and therefore based on that might show a child something inappropriate (if they child had obviously previously viewed inappropriate stuff). I can't think of other data they might be processing that could put someone at risk (the at risk seems to be key here). Does that sound like a reasonable interpretation?
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisation...ormation/using-childrens-information-a-guide/ might also be of interest since it outlines use of children's information.
 
chillibear said:
I thought under the Australian legislation Forums did count as Social Media? I was sure when I skimmed it that was the case, awesome if not. I didn't delve in too deeply since I thought he UK OSA was probably going to be more draconian and we had that covered. Although I should probably find time to go back over it in more detail.


So does that mean Australia put the emphasis on parents rather than service providers. So if I understand you correctly you as a Forum owner don't need to do anything technical (unlike the UK Online Safety Act) to prevent under 16s it's all the parent's responsibility to prevent the child from breaking the law? That must be a relief. So if someone under 16 is using your forum it's their parents' necks on the line not yours.
Click to expand...
Wow 14 million fine. And a big site like that. What is slightly concerning is it seems it was more over processing childrens data than preventing unsuitable content. So a site with suitable content and no age verification (or requirement for it) could also be processing childrens data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom