Online Safety Act

[DeskJockey]

@Matty I assume we're (this forum) in scope. Have you looked at it?

[Jobbo]

It seems to me this plays into the hands of Zuckerberg, Musk etc - forums run by a few people in their spare time don't have the resources to police everything effectively. I really hope the providers of the forum software can make them compliant in a basic way (maybe they are). Expanding the moderation to Simon was probably a good idea, Matt.

[DeskJockey]

I agree. The intention is good, but the unintended consequences haven't been thought through. Reading online there are several forums like ours that have decided to give up because they cannot resource the requirements, despite not having any historic instances of what the act tries to protect against.

[Jobbo]

Yeah, I don't think there's any risk of any of the regulars breaching the Act but you can't account for bots or children registering, or insults to Broccers hurting his feelings.

I've not looked at the Act in any detail but regulation seems very tick-box these days so I can see a potential need to demonstrate that there are processes and procedures in place to evidence compliance, even if there's no actual breach in the content.

[DeskJockey]

From a skim reading of an analysis it seems "we" may need to have an assessment completed and ready for inspection, but I don't know how much work is required behind the scenes to make that feasible (e.g. making loads of config changes to tick the boxes).

[Matty]

Expanding the moderation to Simon was probably a good idea, Matt.

As a patsy?

[Matty]

@Matty I assume we're (this forum) in scope. Have you looked at it?

I have, briefly. While it clearly does apply to us, I've gone on the basis were obscure and small enough to fly under the radar. Just don't go PM'ing other people asking for dick pics and we should be fine.

If all else fails, blame Simon.

[DeskJockey]

Obscurity, the cloak that hides many things...

[Marv]

If all else fails, blame Simon.

FFS, Simon.

[Beany]

Had a skim through and stopped taking it too seriously once I saw it's being enforced by OFCOM who are famously toothless. I predict it being used once or twice to gum Facebook and Twitter and it having no impact in reality, although obvious it's potential for abuse is rife.

Still handy for mods to be able to slap down numpties pushing shite - "You're putting us at risk of being in breach of the Online Safety Act, you're banned"

I'll give it a proper read later, it doesn't appear to affect me professionally (directly), though.

I don't even think we're in scope, BTW? Am I missing something? Or would the user numbers be for all phpBB users collectively in the UK?

[Mito Man]

Just reading about this, seems like the age porno checks thing is coming back. Giving ID, bank details etc to a shady porn site - what could possibly go wrong

Don’t tell the government VPNs exist.

[Beany]

Pfft, the hedgerows behind the bus stop didn't have age checks, and I grew up OK, etc.

[Gavster]

Had a skim through and stopped taking it too seriously once I saw it's being enforced by OFCOM who are famously toothless. I predict it being used once or twice to gum Facebook and Twitter and it having no impact in reality, although obvious it's potential for abuse is rife.

Still handy for mods to be able to slap down numpties pushing shite - "You're putting us at risk of being in breach of the Online Safety Act, you're banned"

I'll give it a proper read later, it doesn't appear to affect me professionally (directly), though.

I don't even think we're in scope, BTW? Am I missing something? Or would the user numbers be for all phpBB users collectively in the UK?

Not looked into it but even if we're in scope, the resources that are allocated to enforcement are likely to be so threadbare that there's nothing to worry about on a small site like this. And even if by some wild chance we were in scope AND they decided to take action, the first step would likely be a warning email to rectify issues.