QLbot and UK Stupitiy

[XorA]

Those who frequent the discord/irc chat will have come across the QLbot that bridges the IRC channels to the discord channels.

Because of the utter stupidity of the UK Online Safety Act I will need to shut this down before the 17th of March.

Unless someone outside the UK with available docker/k8s hosting wishes to take it on, its a simple install of matterbridge and one simple configuration file.

It is unfortunate that big tech managed to nobble this ACT so only they are allowed to run online services.

[NormanDunbar]

Apparently, in the USA, they are attempting to repeal Section 230 which is a similar thing.

Enshitification strikes again.


Cheers,
Norm.

[XorA]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

For those that need a reference to Norman's number!

I had not seen they were trying to repeal it

[dilwyn]

Although it's primarily directed at social media sites (places where content can be shared by users) I've been trying to work out how it applies to me.

It may affect the QL Forum feed to my page, since that's shared to my site before I can vet the content. That might have to go.

The Google Custom Search engine, in case that directs users to inappropriate content.

It may mean I have to more thoroughly screen content sent for my site, meaning longer delays before content appears.

Sharing age inappropriate software (e.g. the strong language in the Squaddies game) may have to go as I have no means of controlling who of what age downloads it.

Lots to identify and think about.

[pjw]

I dont quite see how section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would
affect anyone outside of the US. At least not in the immediate future. The
EU and UK have their own ideas and laws regarding so called free speech on
the Internet.

However, I agree that there is a discussion to be had, although this is
perhaps not the place for it?

[XorA]

Im going to shut this down on Feb 14th!

[Pr0f]

I was looking at the offcom rules - https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/ ... afety-act/

And this section seems to suggest we may have most of what's needed in place already - or am I missing something?

Proportionality is key
The Online Safety Act, and our approach to implementing it, are focused on tackling harm to people across the UK and doing so in a way that is risk-based and proportionate. If services are in scope of the act, they will need to take steps to comply with it, but the more onerous requirements will fall upon the largest services with the highest reach and/or those services that are particularly high risk.

Unfortunately, we also know that harm can exist on the smallest as well as the largest services. So, there are basic steps that all in-scope services need to take to assure themselves and their users that they understand the risks that exist on their service and, where necessary, the steps they will take to mitigate them.

If organisations have carried out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and determined, with good reason, that the risks they face are low, they will only be expected to have basic but important measures to remove illegal content when they become aware of it. These include:

easy-to-find, understandable terms and conditions;
a complaints tool that allows users to report illegal or harmful material when they see it, backed up by a process to deal with those complaints;
the ability to review content and take it down quickly if they have reason to believe it is illegal; and
a specific individual responsible for compliance, who we can contact if we need to.

Only that last point may be a bit irksome...

[pjw]

I was looking at the offcom rules - https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/ ... afety-act/

And this section seems to suggest we may have most of what's needed in place already - or am I missing something?

Proportionality is key
<>

I too think this might a bit of an overreaction. After all what is the chance of "of users encountering":
1. Terrorism
2. Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (CSEA)
a. Grooming
b. Image-based Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM)
c. CSAM URLs
3. Hate
4. Harassment, stalking, threats and abuse
5. Controlling or coercive behaviour
6. Intimate image abuse
7. Extreme pornography
8. Sexual exploitation of adults
9. Human trafficking
10. Unlawful immigration
11. Fraud and financial offences
12. Proceeds of crime
13. Drugs and psychoactive substances
14. Firearms, knives and other weapons
15. Encouraging or assisting suicide
16. Foreign interference
17. Animal cruelty

here? Based on past form, Id say "negligible". And an update to "the dreaded rule book" should be able to deal with any transgressions.

A risk assessment is rather a bureaucratic and technical process but there will be templates out there. Once its done it should be fairly easy to maintain. I know, someone has to do it. Perhaps there is a volunteer?

Two other things worth noting:
1) All in-scope services with a significant number of UK users, or targeting the UK market, are covered by the new rules, regardless of where they are based.
2) "If we decide to open an investigation and find that your service has
failed to comply with its duties, we may impose a penalty of up to 10% of
qualifying worldwide revenue or £18 million (whichever is the greater) and
require remedial action to be taken."

Finally, fleeing to the US is like going from the frying pan into the fire. Perhaps there are currently less regulations, but then so is any protection. Deregulation is only for the big guys. Everyone else is a loser.

[tofro]

The most important part being probably this one:

The regulations are international in their reach and apply to online services that have links with the UK, regardless of where the provider of the service is based or registered.

and

Your online service has links with the UK if:

UK users are a target market for your service; or
It has a significant number of UK users

I, unfortunately, cannot see how the mentioned approach of physically moving the site out of the country would work around this.

(On the other hand, I really cannot see how the UK Government intends to enforce their laws in other legislations...)

[bwinkel67]

How does this apply to Discord servers? Facebook groups? Or even YouTube channels? This all seems a bit crazy and not very enforceable.