6 ms·
None of this seems to describe exactly what the problem with this new act is. Can someone ELI5 what this new law does that means it's no longer safe to run your
by dom96 2y ago
None of this seems to describe exactly what the problem with this new act is. Can someone ELI5 what this new law does that means it's no longer safe to run your own forum?
- IanCal 2y agohttps://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/quick-guide-to-online-safety-risk-assessments/ https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c... You need to do a risk assessment and keep a copy. Depending on how risky things are, you need to put more mitigations in place. If you have a neighbourhood events thing that people can post to, and you haven't had complaints and generally keep an eye out for misuse, that's it. If you run a large scale chat room for kids with suicidal thoughts where unvetted adults can talk to them in DMs you're going to have a higher set of mitigations and things in place. Scale is important, but it's not the only determining factor. An example of low risk for suicide harm is > A large vertical search service specialised in travel searches, including for flights and hotels. It has around 10 million monthly UK users. It uses recommender systems, including for suggesting destinations. It has a basic user reporting system. There has never been any evidence or suggestion of illegal suicide content appearing in search results, and the provider can see no way in which this could ever happen. Even though it is a large service, the provider concludes it has negligible or no risk for the encouraging or assisting suicide offence An example for high risk of grooming is > A social media site has over 10 million monthly UK users. It allows direct messaging and has network expansion prompts. The terms of service say the service is only for people aged 16 and over. As well as a content reporting system, the service allows users to report and block other users. While in theory only those aged 16 and over are allowed to use the service, it does not use highly effective age assurance and it is known to be used by younger children. While the service has received few reports from users of grooming, external expert organisations have highlighted that it is known to be used for grooming. It has been named in various police cases and in a prominent newspaper investigation about grooming. The provider concludes the service is high risk for grooming
- KMnO4 2y agoFrom Wikipedia: > The act creates a new duty of care of online platforms, requiring them to take action against illegal, or legal but "harmful", content from their users. Platforms failing this duty would be liable to fines of up to £18 million or 10% of their annual turnover, whichever is higher.
- reginald78 2y agoDoesn't that 18 million minimum disproportionately effect smaller operations risk wise? Or is that the point?
- intunderflow 2y agoThe purpose of a system is what it does
- Arathorn 2y agoYes. The regulation is set up to destroy smaller startups & organisations; the only folks who have a hope of complying with it are Big Tech.
- throw_m239339 2y agoAKA "regulatory capture".
- alwa 2y agoYes, but it sounds like part of the point is that you want to put the fear of the Lord into small-fry operators. They mention especially in their CSAM discussion that, in practice, a lot of that stuff ends up being distributed by smallish operators, by intention or by negligence—so if your policy goal is to deter it, you have to be able to spank those operators too. [0] > In response to feedback, we have expanded the scope of our CSAM hash-matching measure to capture smaller file hosting and file storage services, which are at particularly high risk of being used to distribute CSAM. Surely we can all think of web properties that have gone to seed (and spam) after they outlive their usefulness to their creators. I wonder how much actual “turnover” something like 4chan turns over, and how they would respond to the threat of a 10% fine vs an £18mm one… [0] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/time-for-tech-firms-to-act-uk-online-safety-regulation-comes-into-force/ https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...
- Tallianar 2y agoI think that the fact that no one is fully sure is part of the problem. The act is intentionally very vague and broad. Generally, the gist is that it's up to the platforms themselves to assess and identify risks of "harm", implement safety measures, keep records and run audits. The guidance on what that means is very loose, but some examples might mean stringent age verifications, proactive and effective moderation and thorough assessment of all algorithms. If you were to ever be investigated, it will be up to someone to decide if your measures were good or you have been found lacking. This means you might need to spend significant time making sure that your platform can't allow "harm" to happen, and maybe you'll need to spend money on lawyers to review your "audits". The repercussions of being found wanting can be harsh, and so, one has to ask if it's still worth it to risk it all to run that online community?
- tracker1 2y agobearing in mind, this is also a country that will jail you for a meme post online.
- jimnotgym 2y ago[dead]
- mardifoufs 2y agoNo, not just memes that encourage people to riot on the streets. But you know that, and it's funny that you think that you'd think that meme encouraging that should be enough to land someone in jail anyways. I mean, it fits very well with the servile "king's subject" mentality that your average Brit has but still, always funny to come across. (And no I'm not american, but the UK is on the opposite end of rationalizing every single restriction and siding with authorities every single time. It's extremely pitiful to see)
- jimnotgym 2y agoWho got jailed for a meme that wasn't inciting to riot?
- lotharcable2 2y agoIt is essentially requiring tech companies to work for the UK government as part of law enforcement. They are required to monitor and censor users or face fines and Ofcom has the ability to shutdown things they don't like. This basically ensures that the only people allowed to host online services for other people in the UK will be large corporations. As they are the only ones that can afford the automation and moderation requirements imposed by this bill. You should be able to self-host content, but you can't do something like operate a forums website or other smaller social media platform unless you can afford to hire lawyers and spend thousands of dollars a month hiring moderators and/or implementing a bullet proof moderation system. Otherwise you risk simply getting shutdown by Ofcom. Or you can do everything yo are supposed to do and get shutdown anyways. Good luck navigating their appeals processes.