Online Harms Bill

[grendel]

Within the Queen's speech, some may have noticed that Oliver Dowden the Culture Secretary has unveiled the new laws contained within the Online Harms Bill.

The bill will come into law within this parliament.

Quote

In an article in the Telegraph Dowden has said that social media organizations that fail to protect children from online harms will be shut down. Dowden goes on to clarify that social media will have "no excuses" and "must face the consequences" if they fail to remove illegal or harmful content.

This means that the team are considering the impact this will have on the forum.

As we have no means of identifying the age of any current members or potential new members, we must assume that anyone of any age could join or already be a forum member. 

therefore we have instigated on the most contentious area of the forum, the jokes section, where the content in the past has been maybe not as family safe as it could have been, the process that from now onward that section will require moderators to approve future posts.

We ask that members respect the spirit of the online harms bill when posting, as although it may not be law yet, it is coming and its on us to be prepared for the day it is law. 

Though this is undoubtedly aimed at the large social media organisations, its a historical fact that smaller organisations are quite often the earlier targets to establish the legal precedent, and we just dont have any funding to be able to fight a litigation case, unlike the big social media organisations. 

We will post updates as and when we find out more and can refine our process.

Please dont feel that we are singling anyone out on the jokes thread, we are still trying to find out if we need to go back to the first post and check all of the sites content (and there are 4000 posts in the joke section alone, many hundreds of thousands of posts in the whole forum)

We will try and implement any new procedures required with as few changes as possible to the way we do things, however it will possibly mean any reported posts will automatically get hidden while the moderator team discuss them, and then either be released to the forum, or remain hidden depending upon the outcome. its early days and we are still working out what is needed so bear with us.

[BroadAmbition]

Chuffin Eck - Rather you than me.

Need any help?

Griff

[grendel]

well I guess if you see something that might fall under the remit of the online harms bill when browsing old posts, hit the report button to let the team know that there is something that needs looking at, I wont suggest going looking for content, but if you spot it while browsing the forum, let us know.

[ChrisB]

Surely the easiest and safest answer is to delete the Jokes section and start again.

[BroadAmbition]

Great idea ChrisB - Gets my vote

Griff

[vanessan]

14 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

Surely the easiest and safest answer is to delete the Jokes section and start again.

A very good idea, gets my vote too. 

[Chelsea14Ian]

I would agree,seems to be the best thing to do.In doing so the easiest thing to do.

[grendel]

well its less than 24 hours since we moderators were initially informed, so at the moment options are under discussion, the Chairman will be making an announcement at some point (once we have had a chance to dissect his proposed statement and check for speeling mistooks) that will explain things in far greater detail than i possibly could, a lot of the measures we have already been slowly implementing into the forum over the past few years anyway.

it has also influenced a lot of the responses by the moderation team over recent times too as we come to terms with its limits and implications. we dont foresee any drastic changes, more minor tweaks.

[Smoggy]

Is it not better to implement an over 18's only clause to a section instead of sanitising the whole world just in case and resulting in people being even more prone to being offended by something they didn't have to look at in the first place and was never intended to be offensive.

[JanetAnne]

I wonder how many under 18's this forum attracts irrespective of its content?

There was talk a while ago about becoming a limited company? Whilst I am not for one second  suggesting that being limited would be a way to circumnavigate our responsibilities, I do wonder whether it would offer some protection to Ian?

I suspect that 99% of us members would happily submit necessary details if asked. Would that allow for an ID dependant section and take pressure of admin?

 

[BroadAmbition]

Agreed 

Griff

[Polly]

Deleting the jokes thread gets my vote. 
Being a limited company is certainly an option but we, as a company, are still liable as editors and the Forum does not have the funding of, say, Private Eye or the Murdoch Empire to fight prosecution. 
 

Anyway. Timbo has been working behind the scenes for many months, so we can expect properly informed decisions in the near future. 

[SteveO]

Get rid of it. A little less humour and lashings more self-righteous indignation seems to be the world is moving. While you are at it, get rid of social media as well and address the problem at it's source.

[grendel]

unfortunately the forum software doesnt contain any way of checking age when the user signs up, or of restricting access via age as an option, otherwise that would be a viable option.

removing the jokes section is an option, but not a step we will take without input from the membership, ok yes its in the members area, so restricted to some extent anyway, but we cant guarantee, they youngsters and vulnerable adults do not already have access to that area, or will not gain access in future.

certainly both here and in our facebook group we will have to be vigilant

[Polly]

Steve, I was thinking of giving the jokes section a fresh start. Saves trawling through the back catalogue.

[oldgregg]

I think that's a good plan.

The jokes section is - conceptually - a good idea as it keeps that content in a separate place and people can just remove it from their feed if they wish. It was created to keep jokey content separate from the more serious stuff so that people have a choice.

A big thank you to the team for dealing with the implementation of this. As someone who knows how much work goes on behind the scenes, I do not envy you in getting all of this sorted.

[Chelsea14Ian]

51 minutes ago, JanetAnne said:

I wonder how many under 18's this forum attracts irrespective of its content?

There was talk a while ago about becoming a limited company? Whilst I am not for one second  suggesting that being limited would be a way to circumnavigate our responsibilities, I do wonder whether it would offer some protection to Ian?

I suspect that 99% of us members would happily submit necessary details if asked. Would that allow for an ID dependant section and take pressure of admin?

 

Why are you using my name?

[JanetAnne]

Erm. .. Ian who owns the forum not you.

[Chelsea14Ian]

Of course I don't or want to own the forum. I MUST of missed the joke.Others seem to think it's funny.Not sure why you mentioned my name.Please tell me.

[JanetAnne]

29 minutes ago, grendel said:

unfortunately the forum software doesnt contain any way of checking age when the user signs up, or of restricting access via age as an option, otherwise that would be a viable .....

I believe the legislation requires a declaration of age, happy to be wrong though. 

[grendel]

groan, does that mean we will be subjected to all the corny jokes yet again.

so at least we have a feeling amongst the members that it would be good to start the jokes section again from scratch.

[JanetAnne]

1 minute ago, grendel said:

groan, does that mean we will be subjected to all the corny jokes yet again.

so at least we have a feeling amongst the members that it would be good to start the jokes section again from scratch.

Is the legislation to be applied retrospectively then?

[grendel]

1 minute ago, JanetAnne said:

Is the legislation to be applied retrospectively then?

that is something we are still trying to ascertain.

[JanetAnne]

Take your time,  I have a whole jokes thread to copy before someone tells me I am offended by it.

Sorry peeps, not a good day today. I shall put the keyboard away before I get moderated

[grendel]

11 minutes ago, JanetAnne said:

I believe the legislation requires a declaration of age, happy to be wrong though. 

dont forget, its vulnerable adults too, so an age declaration would not cover that, much easier to assume members could be of any age and base the forum around that, and everyone just mind their p's and q's