• https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio­ns/draft-online-safety-bill

    I've quickly read it a couple of times... and as far as I can tell:

    • It would apply to LFGSS even though it's basically run by me on a non-profit basis from donations.
    • It would create the risk that I could go to jail for shit other people say via a mechanism of making me responsible for a duty of care for some users.

    It's worded in such a way that I couldn't even just host it in Switzerland or something... as any entity with "links" to the UK are in-scope of the bill... it's not just about things hosted here.

    There seems to be no real threshold where it kicks in... so no matter how small an entity I could make LFGSS I'd still have to comply.

    The conditions are onerous, I'd need risk assessments for the safety of children and adults, kept up to date, and essentially forced to start having additional costs that would be higher than the costs of running the place, i.e. legal fees to ensure I got this stuff right. None of which I wish to take on, nor feel the need to as LFGSS has always very quickly reacted to illegal content and removed it promptly without a burden of bureaucracy to tell me that I need to.

    Worse though, is that "duty of care" is vague... some of this and prior Govt have already argued that end-to-end encryption is a breach of duty of care.

    Oh... and if it shutters, I'd have to shut down all of the other fora I support, including things like the Rapha forum and Brixton Cycles, etc.

    If someone is legally minded and has patience... please do take a scan of the above draft text and see if you can find any reason it wouldn't apply to this site.

    Related:

    Updates:

  • I think one can tell who lobbied on this.

  • Oh... they thought of me in the impact assessment document that tries to quantify the impact if the law were brought in as-is:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk­/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac­hment_data/file/985283/Draft_Online_Safe­ty_Bill_-_Impact_Assessment_Web_Accessib­le.pdf

    240.Under the preferred option, some individuals (who own an online platform) might be in scope of the new regulation if they meet all of the criteria.

    I am and we do.

    If this were the case, these individuals would incur the same costs as any business in scope.

    Meaning I am under the same burden as Facebook and Twitter.

    However, given the low risk functionality exemption, the vast majority (if not all) individuals are likely to be out of scope.

    Erm, hello?

    This is to futureproof the regulations as technologies develop which lower the bar to entry; and to prevent a loophole under which bad actors could make individuals (rather than companies) the service provider to evade regulation.

    That bit wasn't relevant to anything but it did distract you from the bit before.

    The government does not have any evidence of individuals who could be in scope of the regulation

    HELLO 👋

    and given the proportionate and risk-based design of the regime, these are expected to be extremely rare and any costs minimal.

    But you just said I have the same costs as businesses covered, and I am impacted 🤷♀️

  • Can’t believe I hadn’t heard of this before, madness!!

  • Are exclusion clauses relevant? Could you send round a disclaimer to sign that each user excludes any liability for their action from lfgss etc?

    I would be very surprised if passed in it’s current manifestation though, seems completely crazy! Sorry I can’t be of more help

  • Maybe this is an idiotic thought, but could membership of LFGSS include a share of ownership, so that each member was then equally liable for the duty of care etc...

  • Could you donate the forum to some of our regular trolls so they own the liability? Give it to the Conservative party in a clause in white text on a white email?

  • Is there a stock letter that people could send to their local MP? Or could one be drafted?

  • So are you saying it's OK then?

    Cos I've read this paragraph three times so far and still not sure I understand it.

  • No. That paragraph is the impact assessment. And unlike the other parts where they spell out the impact and cost to individuals and conclude the service would shutter. With section 240 this shows the impact of their preferred option... But actually they don't spell out the impact they just change their argument to be that whatever the cost it's worth it, and that they know of no example of an individual who may be impacted... Effectively hand waving the impact away. But the impact remains.

  • Edited the paragraph quote to include a commentary

  • Thanks, with that and reading about three more times I've got it...

    You need to talk to your MP. Even if they're not Tory - they are your route into Parliament and providing that evidence that you do exist.

    From other half (experienced public affairs person and campaigner):

    • Talk to Catherine West - she's good apparently (get a surgery slot, don't write).
    • It's better to talk about your experiences and the potential impact of the bill on you than stuff like sending stock letters to MPs (there could be a time and place for that but not at this stage).
  • Have you contacted the Impact Assessment team?

    "impact assessment — for general enquiries or in response to any of
    the questions included in this impact assessment, please contact
    soh-analysis-team@dcms.gov.uk."

  • Yes.

    I emailed the impact assessment team yesterday.
    And then I emailed the MP who is the Secretary for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport - Oliver Dowden.
    Finally I've emailed my MP Catherine West.

  • reading this has given me the fear!
    Have no idea how I'll fill my days if this place doesn't exist.

  • We might have to actually ride bikes 😬

  • Exactly this.

    (Sorry, I have no legal/technical/useful/helpful advice)

  • It'd be good to get a legal view on it - I suspect it's pretty badly written legislation.

  • I sure would buy a lot fewer bike parts that I don't need anyway

  • I'll try and get Tori to have a look at it. But she is beyond busy right now.

    @Brommers might be able to help?

  • There is a lot of use in the bill of the word 'proportionate', which I think can do a lot of work.

    Subsection (6) specifies that whether steps, systems and processes are
    proportionate is determined by the levels of risk identified in the risk assessment and
    the service provider’s size and capacity. In practice, this means that the expectations
    will be different for a large, high risk service compared to a small, low risk service.

  • Is LFGSS not an exempt service under para 5 of Schedule 1?

  • All to stop freedom to talk about things the government and global orgs don't want you to, to stop the people talking about stuff and including data, blogs etc that exposes their lies, their fraud and criminality and direct harm to everyone (incl targetting specific groups) passed off as caring/wellbeing for the populous.
    All part and parcel of the agenda to break down humanity to be compliant slaves.

  • Does it only apply to ‘user generated’ stuff?

  • That seems to cover comments on newspaper websites ("posting comments or reviews relating to content produced and published by the provider of the service") but don't think it's broad enough to cover a forum like this

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

UK Online Safety Bill... if it passes, I may have to shutter LFGSS

Posted by Avatar for Velocio @Velocio

Actions