LFGSS and Microcosm shutting down 16th March 2025 (the day before the Online Safety Act is enforced)

I know you've said you're here to give advice to whoever tries to rescue the site by finding it a new home, but that ain't gonna happen. I mean, I'm surprised this thread hasn't been derailed yet.

The final archive will be somewhere between 1-2TB.

What size without gravel / tubeless chat?

about 50Mb.

Seems like @Velocio now thinks discord will inevitably be the new home and that that's the best of bad possible outcomes. So long as they can move on from having any responsibility

However there is traction in terms of a number of people offering time and expertise (see lfgss collective thread) to at least explore options once there are compliance tools published in Jan.

I assume Velocio will still advise this group if it does get together

I’m so glad that we hopefully have the expertise to keep the lights on going forwards. Fingers crossed January brings a little more clarity to the situation.
Never been on a forum as slick and intuitive as lufguss but completely understand Dee’s desire to take a step back from all this :)

I believe so too.

Because:

• Who is going to want the risk / liability in their name?
  
• Who is going to want to do the money side?
  
  

The "keep the tech running" side is the easy bit.

I assume Velocio will still advise this group if it does get together

Absolutely... if a group comes together and can take the ownership, it's yours to have, I'll be an advisor and will point out how things work, etc.

Seems like @Velocio now thinks discord will inevitably be the new home

It was already there and is an easy choice. It's also a terrible choice that doesn't have the capabilities t o replace what is here.

You must do away with the notion that Ofcom (or any government agency) has any interest in shutting down small websites. At worst, they are completely indifferent towards you, and at best they hold a sincere belief that small websites should be allowed to operate but find it difficult to provide legislative clarity to both small and large websites at the same time because legislating is hard. There is no evidence that Ofcom (or the government more broadly) have any interest in shutting down small websites, only the supposition based on a very cynical take that all legislation that can harm you is designed that way. There are so many easier ways to target you compared to this legislation.

The unregulated wild west web has been a breeding ground for bad things like CSAM for decades. Large companies have hidden from accountability for the conduct on their platform by shielding themselves with excuses based on "it's the internet, we can't control it, we can only do our best to regulate the content on our platforms" and as long as they are "doing their best" which is defined with hand-waving then they should be allowed to continue as-is regardless of what happens on their platform.

Ofcom want to put the boot into these platforms, they want the platforms to realise that Ofcom don't care about whether the platform is doing their "best" if their "best" is ineffective. Ofcom want platforms to realise that spending a notional amount on removing some CSAM from their platform is inexcusable when the platform is making billions of dollars. Facebook can afford to spend ten billion dollars per year on keeping their platform CSAM free. They choose not to. They choose to do their "best" because it keeps regulators happy and Facebook's conscience clear.

You may be someone who is extremely cautious about complying with the law and have serious concerns about any law that could target you, you may be someone who objects to this legislation on the basis of it being government overreach. That's fine. But to worry about this legislation as if Ofcom have one iota of interest in you and your website is being hysterical. And if you're concerned about this law because it could target you, why are you running any public service in the first place? You're a sitting duck for civil action.

If Ofcom wanted to take on small websites they have so many alternative options, by virtue of how this legislation has been written you can see that they specifically do not want to suppress small websites. For example, a much simpler implementation of this legislation would be to introduce a licensing system for running a website with heavy reporting requirements -- which would make it all but impossible to run a small website.

I, too, have run communities bigger than this one for decades, I have dealt with everything from banned members accosting me in public, death threats, lawsuits, grooming on my websites to illegal material distributed on my websites. I have written policies, taken action and engaged with law enforcement. I am sure you have done the same. The change in law does not change anything on a practical level for small websites. Look at Omegle for an example of how this law is not required to take down a website for the activities this legislation targets. Omegle was taken down by civil action, not government action.

I have no connection to illuminate tech. but it is quite easy to read between the lines. They're telling you that Ofcom have no interest in pursuing you, and that they're happy to do the basic performative compliance work on your behalf to stop the hysteria. illuminate tech. are politely saying, "you're being hysterical. If you really need some documents to make you feel comfortable with this law, we'll write them for you.".

Points aside, many of which are valid, you might be heard a bit better if you did away with the ad hominem. Everyone here is human and to have a limited appetite for risk while still wanting to run a public service is both understandable and commendable, not a contradiction in terms. And welcome to LFGSS.

I don't think anyone's disputing any of your points, least of all @Velocio

They're saying there's an extremely small chance of a catastrophically bad outcome with the regulations in their current form.

And that risk*result isn't something they're willing to entertain

My intention is not to attack anyone. I have sympathy for anyone running a public service out of the goodness of their heart. I know that it is a thankless nightmare as often as it is a rewarding and nourishing experience. Anyone running an online community as an individual while concerned about risk is coo coo bananas. I could couch my thoughts with nice smelling flowery language but a blunt olfactory assault is needed to wake anyone running an online community as an individual. Run your community as an independent legal entity, keep an eye on this legislation because it's relevant to your interests, and continue on with cautious optimism that our government, which can barely do the things it wants to do, isn't going to do the things it doesn't want to do.

What catastrophically bad outcome? What's worse than lawsuits, being accosted in public, death threats and swatting, outcomes we've all been at risk of (and experienced) long before this legislation was but a glint in the eye of an eager junior lawmaker? The limited liability afforded to me by law means legal action, whether private or government, is the least worrisome outcome when someone has a grudge against me or my websites. I am far more worried about a nerd with a grudge and my address than I am the government.

I think the point that has been made before is that this legislation gives bad actors a new, bigger tool to go after website owners.

The government may not explicitly want to shut down lfgss, but now if a disgruntled troll really wanted to, they could use the OSA and the government to do so and prosecute the owner.

This news is really miserable, but what stands out is that Velocio doesn't do this for a living and what a gesture that is. I'm not a huge contributor to this forum (I'm terrible at typing interesting content!) but really enjoy reading and chipping in where possible. I'll be gutted if the site closes as-is, but it's amazing it's here so I'll do my best to enjoy it while it lasts!

That's already the case today. The legislation introduces one more weapon to an already overflowing arsenal of weapons accessible by malicious actors. A motivated attacker willing to upload CSAM to a website to hypothetically trigger catastrophic consequence from Ofcom doesn't need this new legislation, they can do that today. There is already a meaningful amount of risk associated with running a website on the internet. A disgruntled troll can already cause a website operator to be killed which is a much greater existential risk than an Ofcom investigation.

I was once threatened by someone who used one of my websites, a few weeks later he was arrested because he attempted to murder a bunch of people at a school (he failed but it's the thought that counts). That's the sort of things you deal with as a person who angers nerds on the internet and that's an existential threat regardless of the ability to shield yourself from legal liability. Anyone invoking the angry, vengeful troll as an explanation for why this law is bad is probably inexperienced with real angry, vengeful trolls. An idiot weaponising poorly defined legislation that I'm protected from due to limited liability is a welcome vacation from the truly dangerous and vengeful trolls.

The reason our lives aren't ruined by trolls is not the absence of bad legislation but the absence of motivation on the part of the trolls. For every one person willing to commit an atrocity, there are millions of people who, at their worst, will write some angry words. The greatest protection we have is the disinterest most people have in revenge. The reason my life hasn't been ruined over the years by all the people who considered me an enemy because I told them off for saying bad words on an internet forum is not because Ofcom didn't have poorly thought out legislation, it's because the number of people who actually want to ruin my life is so vanishingly small and they're about as competent at life-ruining as they are abiding by forum rules.

If someone wants to destroy you using the law, they can today. If someone wants to destroy you and is willing to act outside of the law, they can today. I wish that everyone was right, that without this legislation our livelihoods are safe from the ire of angry nerds, but alas, they are not, we're no more and no less sitting ducks with this legislation.

The problem with the OSA is that limited liability through a corporation don't help you as much as you think it does, also Velocio has dealt with angry trolls with an address before so maybe revise your assumptions some, but otherwise again you make a lot of good points.

A candle in the wind.

On our own we don't stand a chance, we all know everyone hates cyclists.

But if this law starts affecting SportBall ( our national obsession, like the royal apparently) sites then there could be big trouble. The PM is a SportBall fan and practitioner, the media can't get enough of it, big corps thrown money at it, etc,etc.

So, if these normal people rise up, like they did with that EuroLeague thing then the world turns, exceptions are made and on we go, I hope.

Is that a straw I see?

we all know everyone hates cyclists

I know you jest, but it's still important to clear this up for people who just don't understand irony.

Of course people don't 'hate' cyclists. Many are stressed because of the huge part personal transport has to play in their lives because they can't access jobs, education, or leisure facilities anywhere close to their homes, and there's a general myth going round that if you cycle, you must be smug and privileged.

Whatever antipathy there is has very little to do with cycling and much more with social factors, plus the stress that many people experience either driving or riding, and the occasional moment of badly-resolved conflict.

Carry on, as you were.

Here is a football forum of ~40k members discussing the matter:

https://www.footballforums.net/index.php?threads/online-safety-bill-is-ff-at-risk.284012/

I had a quick check around some of the forums of the bigger teams, and couldn't find any of them talking about it -

https://www.redcafe.net/forums/ Man Utd 40k members
https://www.utdforum.com/forum/ Man Utd 10k members
https://thefightingcock.co.uk/forum/ Spurs 10k members
https://spurscommunity.co.uk/index.php?forums/ Spurs 27k members
https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/ Liverpool 45k members
https://www.lfcreds.com/reds/index.php Liverpool 20k members
https://www.theshedend.com/ Chelsea 17k members
https://forum.talkchelsea.net/ Chelsea 16k members

That's 185k forum members going on their merry way...

I really hope fourms and other sites find a way out of this, Good news it looks like news about this is picking up alot of steam so I hope the UK gov and Ofcom panic and backtrack when it backfires hard, I think there will be alot of Judicial review and legal challenges to this while there huge backlash from the public when sites start blocking the UK leading to the UK gov backtracking hard and bringing the law more in line with the EU DSA and getting rid of the AV parts but there going to be ton of damage.

My hope: Peter Kyle does a mass exempt for small sites and Ofcom is forced to delay many parts of the act while the AV never come into force because of the huge privacy nightmare and likely to end up with alot of privacy and legal issues.

My fear:

Peter Kyle just goes:

And then Labour double down with legal but harmful and a under 16 ban.

Use an accountant, then the registered address is their business address.

Dang, I use to lurk bikeforums, kissena group on fb, dissensus, djhistory, hollerboard, ilx, etc., before I found this place and way before I knew about reddit. LFGSS is a great outlet. That is all.

I'm optimistic. Peter Kyle has been an MP local to me for nearly 10 years whilst not my local MP but is one of a very small handful of MP's that seem genuinely decent. He's always been popular, easy to engage with and proactive so hopefully he's not turned into a dick now he's a hitter 🤞

LFGSS has been a near daily part of my life for 14 years. It pre-dates meeting my wife, getting my first job and eventually leaving London (and the UK). I have learned more from the people 'on here' than I did from university, and I feel grateful to have been able to contribute back to the community on occassion. I haven't met many of you in real life (except that one time @hippy appeared after I was punched in the face) but the familiarity built up through years of reading your posts is something I will miss greatly if it disappears. Thanks Velocio for everything you have done and continue to do. I hope there is a solution that allows LFGSS to continue in as similar a form as possible.