Just imagine a court going over the content in here 
If they have the spare time and cash to bother we are more fooked than I thought
FAO Mods - The UK online safety bill that comes into effect on March 17th
I canāt be the sacrificial lamb but Hugo can!
- Edited
Shitty WiFi double-post
a bunch of GAYmers shitting the bed sends JC into a tailspin!
Time for @Amps to shine and stick it to the authorities 
Whereās that picture of yer fella @Smallman1 ?
- Edited
Thanks for bringing this up Wal. It looks like it will be curtains for us here.
Why am I getting lots of invites to meet on the Fabric stairs at 3am all of a sudden?
Goodbye cruel world
Well this is shit. Looks like weāll need to find somewhere else to live again.
If weāre not doing anything wrong on here, which weāre not, why does it have to be curtains?
- Edited
Can we use Discord?
If so Iāll look into setting it up
- Edited
mono-stereo Thanks for bringing this up Wal. It looks like it will be curtains for us here.
The link Wally posted looks to be scare-mongering. For starters, that forum has already posted an update saying that they have found a way to continue functioning:
https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/401988/#comment17640529
But a key thing I found is here. For small service providers (less than 70,000 active UK users) such as this one, it seems as if sufficient terms & conditions, plus basic moderating practices - mainly a complaint/report function, which this site already has, seems as if itād be sufficient to comply:
"The more onerous requirements will fall upon the largest services with the highest reach and/or those services that are particularly high risk.
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."
If you can just show that youāve gone through the online risk assessment on the Ofcom website as per above, and have a moderating function with sufficient ts & cs, then I doubt thereād be much they could do.
I very much doubt theyāll spend much effort following up on any of this anyway - already it seems like Labour may end up watering down the bill even further to appease the US:
- Edited
I think part of this also turns on the extent to which the board is a āserviceā. There is a checking process to determine whether it would apply to us, which should be the first port of call - unless someone has done it already.
It says: āIf your business provides an online service (a service made available over the internet), such as a website or an app, the Act may apply.ā That might suggest a way to get around it. I can see why the other forum was scared by the broad scope but I see this as being aimed at sites that have a direct link with the public by virtue of the services it offers. Could be wrong though.
Edit: Plus what Hugo said about risk assessments.
- Edited
hugopal this is useful, cheers Hugo.