Search results for:

I'm allergic to blockchains unfortunately, I come out in a nasty rash just thinking about it.

I can give you my background in dm

Just found that (I'm good at the internet).

Happy to speak more to see if there's a way... but if the liability isn't reduced or the risk reduced (and this one is harder, grudgeful people, etc)... then the outcome remains.

It's not as if we have a whole thread listing that kind of person and their repeated attempts to get back in.

Or a whole hidden history documenting someone who tried revoking the domain via ICANN, claiming copyright to the ISP, and then finally escalating to a defamation lawsuit.

Grudgeful people will be grudgeful.

posted several, it's showing they're all active

Risk assessment is first, then whatever actions it reveals, and it's an ongoing process and as the law is new you're in the territory of lawyers figuring it out rather than just applying a template.

And after it's done... the personal risk as the site owner remains, the disproportionate liability remains, and a grudgeful person could still weaponise it.

as soon as I know who you are in Discord you're getting admin permissions again.

lolz, remember when we had a bit of excess cash from eBay affiliates, and to put it back into the community we just spent it on a booth at the bike show so that forumengers had a hangout space... zero commercial intent, just a doss area of the bike show conference, and a wall of 2k pics of the community spelling out LFGSS.

It's always been about people.

I guess I'll head over to whatever bits of the forum make it over to Discord etc but it's not really going to be the same is it.

It will be the people remaining connected that makes the difference.

It won't matter if the forum exists or not... in many ways it's just about the stories we tell, and the mistakes in the retelling, that keep people bonded.

The trick at this point is just to stay connected, and to connect more IRL... Discord can be the glue, but the forum won't exist in the future.

oh yeah, it's appalling.

but yet it also functions :shrug

Can we move to Slack or Teams instead so it at least looks like I'm working?

At $15/m per active user, we would never ever have afforded it.

updated it

and yes it is active

All these will lead to the same place

https://discord.gg/km4HNQcPVk
https://discord.gg/WgZZRWw
https://discord.gg/wY6wnBe

If you have trouble, turn off your VPN or sign out of Discord before signing up... or use the dedicated "Join server from invite" link.

This Discord instance was created years ago, we're just using it now.

Fixed it going forward.

Copy this one, it solves a bug

RonnieOatmilk (2)
https://www.lfgss.com/comments/17610897/
Ewan111 ()
https://www.lfgss.com/comments/17611402/
umop3pisdn ()
https://www.lfgss.com/comments/17611429/
caveatgez (2)
https://www.lfgss.com/comments/17612376/
iamlono (2)
https://www.lfgss.com/comments/17612416/
d0cA ()
https://www.lfgss.com/comments/17612460/
WillMelling ()
https://www.lfgss.com/comments/17612500/
moocher ()
https://www.lfgss.com/comments/17612599/

What are the chances of keeping a static backup?

I think I'd actually be in compliance with the law if no-one could comment.

So one option is to break the authentication, expire all current authentication... and then the whole site is read-only.

But this costs £400 per month at the lower end to operate... so I could only do that for a short while.

Also note: a static dump... of what exactly? You're also lifting authentication controls from a lot of content that was never intended to be public. We would need to also exclude a hell of a lot.

the post immediately before you carries the real fears... even if we did the dance, raised the monies, got pricey legal involved... it doesn't change the risk to me.

Not sure gov will ever try to pursue forums as this one

You've got to put this into context... I too doubt they would ever pursue a site like this.

But I've received multiple death threats, had stalkers, and so on... from people who were moderated against precisely because they were threatening and a risk to others.

What this Act does is weaponise OfCom for use by those people who I would happily ban or moderate again... it gives an extremely powerful weapon to those people to seek revenge for having been banned... and that risk is carried by myself, individually, and totally.

There is a tiny risk enforcement would cover us... except for the fact that these are internet forums and those who I moderated and who have confronted me in real life, etc... those will now have the means to do something... they just need to complain to OfCom.

Anyone recall that time when I got sued by the BNP? Under this Act that would have succeeded and it would have ruined my life.

I've too much experience here to shrug it off as hypothetical when it is not.

can it be a Mastodon instance

well, I do have a spare domain soon.

I could point it at something else.

I didn't read it wrong, I'm just reading a summarised BBC article
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy8­3jdpgw5o

Read gov.uk or ofcom:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer

Companies can be fined up to £18 million or 10 percent of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater. Criminal action can be taken against senior managers who fail to ensure companies follow information requests from Ofcom. Ofcom will also be able to hold companies and senior managers (where they are at fault) criminally liable if the provider fails to comply with Ofcom’s enforcement notices in relation to specific child safety duties or to child sexual abuse and exploitation on their service.

"Companies" in the Act isn't even defined like that... this page is also an explainer, the Act itself is clear that this applies to all sites, apps, and services in scope... and that means it applies to me even without me having a company, just lil' 'ol me getting on with it.

What if you sold lfgss

I really don't trust anyone else... with the private forums, the DMs, or even if those were all deleted... just the communities.

Everyone else would see the people as a source of profit, rather than seeing people as full people with love and sadness and so much emotions and joy.

I am not even considering selling this or any other forum... everything has a time, and it seems for the technical and admin side of this community that time has come.

I do hope that everyone here finds a new community, a new home... that when this falls it gives rise to a thousand other small things, and that what is special lives on.

10% of turnover

You read that wrong... £18M or 10% of turnover, whichever is greater.

Ofcom are clear on it.

If the Act leads to the closure of LFGSS, then it simply can't be a good piece of legislation.

This is known to not be good legislation, but there was a culture war stoked by the Conservatives that Labour are not choosing to extinguish... forums and other UK sites are collateral damage.

The only thing we could do is let our MPs know, and to let Dame Melanie Dawes who runs Ofcom know... but I can guarantee you that they just do not care about the collateral damage, they care about this legislation being a tool to go after all social media.

What if it wasn't run by you in the UK? What if it was run by someone not based here?

It doesn't work... yes I'm the obvious link, but still...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer

The Act applies to services even if the companies providing them are outside the UK should they have links to the UK. This includes if the service has a significant number of UK users