Will Basschat survive the Online Safety Act?

[rwillett]

1 hour ago, TimR said:

I can't see anyone joining BassChat to pick up women...

Given the weight of some of the basses, I struggle to pick up my Jazz at times 

[fretmeister]

Update:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yljn2vkn1o

 

Looks like age checks are going to be unavoidable. Presumably that means quite a bit of additional GDPR compliance and record keeping by forums.

[fretmeister]

Hamster forum has gone.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/03/18/hamster-forum-local-residents-websites-shut-down-new-laws/?ICID=continue_without_subscribing_reg_first

 

Hamster forum and local residents’ websites shut down by new internet laws

Scope and scale of Online Safety Act likened to China’s ‘great firewall’ as small websites struggle to comply

James TitcombTechnology Editor

 

18 March 2025 2:09pm GMT

 

Dozens of small internet forums have blocked British users or shut down as new online safety laws come into effect, with one comparing the new regime to a British version of China’s “great firewall”.

Several smaller community-led sites have stopped operating or restricted services, blaming new illegal harms duties enforced by Ofcom from Monday.

They range from a hamster owners’ forum, a local group for residents of the Oxfordshire town of Charlbury, and a large cycling forum.

The hosts of the lemmy.zip forum, hosted in Finland, blocked users from the UK accessing the site, saying the measures “pave the way for a UK-controlled version of the ‘great firewall’”.

The great firewall refers to the strict controls imposed by Chinese internet authorities, which restrict Western sites such as Google, Facebook and Wikipedia in the country and is seen as a model of online censorship.

Britain’s Online Safety Act, a sprawling set of new internet laws, include measures to prevent children from seeing abusive content, age verification for adult websites, criminalising cyber-flashing and deepfakes, and cracking down on harmful misinformation.

Under the illegal harms duties that came into force on Monday, sites must complete risk assessments detailing how they deal with illegal material and implement safety measures to deal with the risk.

The Act allows Ofcom to fine websites £18m or 10pc of their turnover.

The regulator has pledged to prioritise larger sites, which are more at risk of spreading harmful content to a large number of users.

“We’re not setting out to penalise small, low-risk services trying to comply in good faith, and will only take action where it is proportionate and appropriate,” a spokesman said.

“We’re initially prioritising the compliance of sites and apps that may present particular risks of harm from illegal content due to their size or nature – for example because they have a large number of users in the UK, or because their users may risk encountering some of the most harmful forms of online content and conduct.”

‘The home of all things hamstery’

However, many smaller internet forums have said they are not willing to deal with the compliance, or shoulder the theoretical financial burden of the new laws.

“While this forum has always been perfectly safe, we were unable to meet [the compliance requirements of the Act],” wrote the operators of The Hamster Forum, which describes itself as “the home of all things hamstery”.

Richard Fairhurst, the administrator of the “Charlbury in the Cotswolds” forum, wrote that the Act was “a huge issue for small sites, both in terms of the hoops that site admins have to jump through, and potential liability”.

“Running a small forum is much harder than it was when I started doing this almost 25 years ago,” he wrote on the site. The site has remained open but closed a debate board where people discussed off-topic issues.

Mr Fairhurst, who has run the forum since 2001, told The Telegraph: “By putting all these burdens on the small sites its going to push people away from these small locally run British-owned sites and towards the American giants.”

Bike Radar, the forum of the cycling magazine, shut down on Monday blaming “continually rising operational costs” without mentioning the Act specifically. The site has millions of posts.

The Green Living Forum, which was set up in the early 2000s and had more than 470,000 posts, has also closed down, with the site’s administrator saying they were not willing to be liable for fines.

The host of lemmy.zip, a forum for sharing links, said he would block UK-based internet addresses from accessing the site.

“These measures pave the way for a UK-controlled version of the ‘great firewall,’ granting the government the ability to block or fine websites at will under broad, undefined, and constantly shifting terms of what is considered ‘harmful’ content, a message on the site said.

The UK-based administrator of the site, who did not want to be named, said: “If I was living in any other country I’d be ignoring this, but because of this personal risk I can’t. I can’t deal with the possibility of an £18m fine for something I can’t guarantee I can comply with.”

Ofcom defends regulation

Ofcom has said that for small sites, the costs of complying “are likely to be negligible or in the small thousands at most”.

Digital rights campaigners the Open Rights Group (ORG) said Ofcom should exempt smaller sites from enforcement. “The Online Safety Act places onerous duties on small websites and blogs that may lead them to close or geoblock UK users rather than risk penalties,” the ORG’s James Baker said.

“The closure of small sites will not keep children safe but will benefit bigger sites, including Facebook and X, who are laying waste to content moderation on their platforms.

“There is a simple solution – the Secretary of State can exempt small, safe websites from onerous Online Safety duties, and protect plurality online.”

[diskwave]

 

29 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

The regulator has pledged to prioritise larger sites, which are more at risk of spreading harmful content to a large number of users.

“We’re not setting out to penalise small, low-risk services trying to comply in good faith, and will only take action where it is proportionate and appropriate,” a spokesman said

Hamster weekly shut down??  and others?  This is madness. How on earth are all these inoccuous little websites dangerous?  I think there's going to be a groundswell of objection to all this and each site will be judged on whether or not it is dangerous to young people or not. Basschat as an eg ....dangerous? I think not.

 

[fretmeister]

The age check thing is particularly crap.

 

At one end it could be a renewed log-in / account creation wording with multiple click throughs like Apple T&C or it could require the mods to actually see official documents which would cause a massive GDPR nightmare. There's no guidance on what is "sufficient" so Ofcom will have the power to shut down any site that just annoys them.

 

When site owners are outside of the UK Ofcom will just order the web companies to block access completely.

 

There are dozens of tiny forums set up for things that are far more important than bass guitars or hamsters - disease support forums, addiction forums etc etc. Anonymity is a vital part of their work.

 

And the bit about videos and other stuff being "objectionable" is undefinable and ridiculous. Everything is objectionable to someone. You just know that someone is going to report a forum for "promoting" pineapple on pizza as being objectionable, and Ofcom are going to have to wade through all that crap.

 

The test should be whether something is illegal or not.

[TimR]

11 minutes ago, diskwave said:

 

Hamster weekly shut down??  and others?  This is madness. How on earth are all these inoccuous little websites dangerous?  I think there's going to be a groundswell of objection to all this and each site will be judged on whether or not it is dangerous to young people or not. Basschat as an eg ....dangerous? I think not.

 

 

It's the owners not really understanding the implications.

 

It's the old 'Health and Safety gone mad' syndrome, where people are just stopped from doing things by people who catastrophise everything. 

[TimR]

5 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

Ofcom will have the power to shut down any site that just annoys them

 

But are extremely unlikely to. This will be retrospective, if someone comes to harm, there will be an investigation and the owner will have to show they assessed the risk, mitigated it.

 

Any punishments will be proportionate. They're not going to take someone's house and throw them in jail for running a small local forum. 

[fretmeister]

15 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

But are extremely unlikely to. This will be retrospective, if someone comes to harm, there will be an investigation and the owner will have to show they assessed the risk, mitigated it.

 

Any punishments will be proportionate. They're not going to take someone's house and throw them in jail for running a small local forum. 

 

Even if you trust Ofcom to be proportionate under a set of rules that are clearly disproportionate, then compliance and dealing with an investigation costs money. Money that a lot of smaller forums just do not have. Some might have to close simply because of that.

 

The court system is full of appeals due to disproportionate sentencing of all types. There is no reason to think this will be any different.

[Woodinblack]

1 hour ago, TimR said:

Any punishments will be proportionate. They're not going to take someone's house and throw them in jail for running a small local forum. 

 

Take all their hamsters!

[fretmeister]

2 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Take all their hamsters!

what about the elderberries?

 

[Misdee]

5 hours ago, fretmeister said:

Update:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yljn2vkn1o

 

Looks like age checks are going to be unavoidable. Presumably that means quite a bit of additional GDPR compliance and record keeping by forums.

At my age they need to check I'm still breathing.

[Pseudonym]

4 minutes ago, Misdee said:

At my age they need to check I'm still breathing.

 

Some sites might want to see proof of age on an official document. Basschat will want to see breath condense on a mirror.

[TimR]

Why don't email providers just do the checks and then provide a verify service to third parties? Then anything you log into with your email is already checked for you. 

[rwillett]

3 minutes ago, TimR said:

Why don't email providers just do the checks and then provide a verify service to third parties? Then anything you log into with your email is already checked for you. 

The question would then be, who pays for it? And who carries the risk?

 

I think it's a good idea though. Perhaps a good business idea!

 

Rob

[Woodinblack]

From what I see the age requirements are only to avoid seeing age appropriate things in your 'feed' and checks to ensure no access to adult only content.

Basschat has no algorithms to give you any 'feed' - that is obviously based on facebook / twitter style feeds, and we have never had adult only sections, apart from maybe the sections on P basses in sunburst and tort that you have to be at least 70 to have an interest in

 

[fretmeister]

On 24/04/2025 at 15:55, Woodinblack said:

From what I see the age requirements are only to avoid seeing age appropriate things in your 'feed' and checks to ensure no access to adult only content.

Basschat has no algorithms to give you any 'feed' - that is obviously based on facebook / twitter style feeds, and we have never had adult only sections, apart from maybe the sections on P basses in sunburst and tort that you have to be at least 70 to have an interest in

 

 

Tort anything ought to be considered a war crime so if I'm ever appointed as the head of the ICC that will get a lot of people in a lot of trouble.

 

10 years in the dilithium mines at least!

[rwillett]

On 24/04/2025 at 15:55, Woodinblack said:

From what I see the age requirements are only to avoid seeing age appropriate things in your 'feed' and checks to ensure no access to adult only content.

Basschat has no algorithms to give you any 'feed' - that is obviously based on facebook / twitter style feeds, and we have never had adult only sections, apart from maybe the sections on P basses in sunburst and tort that you have to be at least 70 to have an interest in

 

I think this is the key line here

 

"Websites will have to change the algorithms that recommend content to young people and introduce beefed-up age checks or face big fines, the UK media regulator has confirmed." My emphasis added.

 

This is targetting the social media apps that push things to you. Basschat doesn't recommend things, also we don't have any young people. I will get around to reading the legislation and the Ofcom stuff once the bass bash is over and I have a free few hours.

 

Just for information, there are circa 11.1M .co.uk domains registered, not all of which are live. A simple thought experiment on how much work is needed to process this information if its only 10 mins per website per year manually. You can't do everything by computer yet. UK law isn't very happy with fully automated decision making by UK Govt depts.

 

Assume 50% are live so that's 5M websites = 5,000,000 * 10 = 50M minutes

 

So 50M minutes = 833,333 hours.

833,333 hours = 120,000 days (ish) Assuming lunch breaks

120,000 days = circa 550 people

 

As of 31/3/23 Ofcom had circa 1,300 employees.

 

So even a cursory 10 min check will require a 41% increase in employees. I know that the civil service is doing it's best to cap new recruitment. Ofcom is considered a quango and whilst it is not subject to civil service recruitment blocks, its funded by frees from industry as well as grants from central govt. It will not be capable of recruiting 550 people or 275 people or even 140 people for a 2.5 min check. Somebody has to answer the phones, report on how many websites are checked, this is all manual. There are no robots here. I'm also not aware of any software development that might be taking place to do this work. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened as I'm focussed around certain areas of UK Govt, but I might have heard.

 

As I've said before, the focus here will be on the large social media companies. Basschat is in the low level noise here (pun intended)

Rob

 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by rwillett

[Woodinblack]

2 hours ago, rwillett said:

I think this is the key line here

 

"Websites will have to change the algorithms that recommend content to young people and introduce beefed-up age checks or face big fines, the UK media regulator has confirmed." My emphasis added.

 

Which is pretty well what you quoted that I said - we don't have a feed, we dont' have algorithms that agrigate content and decide what to push to you or recommend. what you see is either everything or topics you have posted in, or been quoted in etc. and you could choose that.

 

We can't rely on not having young people, there is nothing in place to establish the age of the users, which is why we try and keep the worst stuff out of the topics like the meme threads - yes, I know as people say kids see worse stuff than that at school and at home, but we are not liable for that.

 

 

2 hours ago, rwillett said:

Just for information, there are circa 11.1 .co.uk domains registered,

 

I think you will find there are more than that. I can think of over 20

 

[Stub Mandrel]

This isn't the sort of legislation where someone will be checking everyone for compliance.

 

Like Health and Safety, only high risk organisations will be inspected. For others it's a case of 'if something goes wrong, you had better have your ducks in a row'.

 

And just like H&S, that means risk assessing and then taking any required action. If something bad happens but you can show your assessment of risk was reasonable and you took appropriate actions to mitigate that risk, you have a sound defence.

[fretmeister]

2 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

This isn't the sort of legislation where someone will be checking everyone for compliance.

 

Like Health and Safety, only high risk organisations will be inspected. For others it's a case of 'if something goes wrong, you had better have your ducks in a row'.

 

And just like H&S, that means risk assessing and then taking any required action. If something bad happens but you can show your assessment of risk was reasonable and you took appropriate actions to mitigate that risk, you have a sound defence.

 

It only needs someone who has been banned with a chip on the shoulder to make up some really heinous crap involving kids...

[Stub Mandrel]

7 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

 

It only needs someone who has been banned with a chip on the shoulder to make up some really heinous crap involving kids...

 

Which could be rapidly disproved by looking at the forum database.

[tauzero]

12 hours ago, rwillett said:

Just for information, there are circa 11.1M .co.uk domains registered, not all of which are live. A simple thought experiment on how much work is needed to process this information if its only 10 mins per website per year manually. You can't do everything by computer yet. UK law isn't very happy with fully automated decision making by UK Govt depts.

 

Assume 50% are live so that's 5M websites = 5,000,000 * 10 = 50M minutes

 

But most of them will be passive websites that just carry information and don't try to push anything to anyone. It's only web forums and other social media that will be examined, assuming that a web crawler can be adapted to detect forums.

[rwillett]

4 hours ago, tauzero said:

 

But most of them will be passive websites that just carry information and don't try to push anything to anyone. It's only web forums and other social media that will be examined, assuming that a web crawler can be adapted to detect forums.

You are correct that most will be, I hadn't considered that, but how are Ofcom going to know?

 

If they develop a Web crawler, does it respect the robots.txt file? 

 

This is going to be very difficult for them to police. 

 

 

 

 

[TimR]

18 minutes ago, rwillett said:

You are correct that most will be, I hadn't considered that, but how are Ofcom going to know?

 

If they develop a Web crawler, does it respect the robots.txt file? 

 

This is going to be very difficult for them to police. 

 

 

 

 

 

It's very easy to 'police'. Someone complains, they investigate. 

 

If your moderators have been doing their job, you won't have an issue in the first place. If something does slip past the moderators, the very fact you have active moderators with policies in place protects you and any children. 

 

No one is going to be patrolling the Internet looking for problems in the off chance they'll find them. 

Edited 3 hours ago by TimR

[RogerDodger]

How about picking up men on here? Probably not either!