-
Finally got around, after 6+ years, to updating https://microcosm.app so that it no longer looks like a company.
Should've done that ages ago, but with the announcement it's clearly led to confusion.
-
Well I’ve written to my MP and Ofcom, not sure what else I can contribute and doubt it will make any difference but there you go.
-
Been a member there way before LFGSS, the actual forum software is a long running joke, it’s shockingly bad and has had numerous amazing long awaited updates over the years that seem to just make it worse.
Think there was a tongue in cheek post in that thread saying there must be something wrong with LFGSS as when you click on a thread there is no 30 second delay to load and that must need fixing…
-
Had a quick look at the singletrack thread and this made me smile
1 Attachment
-
-
I work in advertising and I love this element
Singletrack actually pre-check "legitimate interest" on a number of those... which clearly shows they don't know what legitimate interest means.
I've always liked my own approach to cookie consent, data protection and GDPR... just don't collect anything at all, simples.
Though we did have some outbound links to a few sites for a while that would add affiliate tracking that was done so via query string components and did not use any cookies or anything on this site... so things were only ever set it you followed the link, but then... things would be set at the destination anyway.
-
Singletrack actually pre-check "legitimate interest" on a number of those... which clearly shows they don't know what legitimate interest means.
Sadly they are not the only ones. Consent requests are done almost universally badly. I struggle to think of any publisher that does data collection and consent well, outside of those like you and also John Gruber at daring fireball who just don’t do it.
-
Hear hear, very well said Mick.
Merry Christmas to you & S & S from K & me x
-
Is it Yahoo's responsibility to comply with the new regulations or us as club committee?
Yahoo are the service provider in this example, so they are the ones subject to OfCom regulation
Your part is to abide by Yahoo's t&cs.
-
they could do but it would be impractical, no-one would comply and it would not absolve them of their own responsibilities to comply.
more likely they will just say "don't use our service to do illegal stuff or other stuff which is contrary to the online safety bill and other applicable laws and regulations etc."
-
A lot will fall on Yahoo, but Yahoo will hold you to account for moderation of your community, and if you fail to moderate they will likely just cut you off as it's the lowest risk thing to do.
In essence:
- Do you run the actual software (whether or not you wrote the software)? Then you're 100% on the hook for everything identified in the risk assessment as part of the OSA.
So if someone else runs the software, i.e. you're a Facebook group, a Google group, a Yahoo group, all these kinds of scenario are they are the platform provider and they have to do full compliance.
It's interesting as if you downloaded phpBB and ran it, you're the provider... you would be fully responsible. But if you purchased phpBB from a hosted platform then they're the provider. But if you installed phpBB via Cpanel on your own server then you're the provider, etc.
Who runs it matters.
And whoever is running it will limit their risk exposure by implementing tools and enforcing quite strictly... so they will push some degree of "as a moderator for your community you must... " onto yourselves, but ultimately if you fail to do it they'd likely just delete your community as it's more cost effective for them to do so.
- Do you run the actual software (whether or not you wrote the software)? Then you're 100% on the hook for everything identified in the risk assessment as part of the OSA.
-
I’ve really enjoyed this forum for a long time. Joined way back when as I was obsessed with building a fixed gear bicycle and knowledge on such things was hard to come by. Have never been much of a part of the community offline but have met a few lovely people over the years buying and selling and was on the forum dunrun and bus back whenever that was - 2009/10? It’s been an excellent run and although I’ll miss this place, all good things etc etc. Thank you Velocio for all your efforts, you’ve been 531Awesome.
-
@robertinventor never replied to me or came back to talk (down) to us again.
I feel rejected.
-
He's behind you!!!
mashton
M_V
ric_a5
otohime
marcomarcos
Mr_Smyth
BareNecessities
stelfox
euan
Cheetah
OneLessCardigan
ChasnotRobert
T_Unit
coventry_eagle-
Post a reply
About
LFGSS and Microcosm shutting down 16th March 2025 (the day before the Online Safety Act is enforced)
Posted by
@Velocio
Lolz.
If Ofcom, the home secretary and the houses of parliament and lords don't want small sites to interpret what they're saying in their own words when they write a law and issue guidance then they do have a way to do something about it... They can declare all entities with a global turnover less than and a global staff count less than, exempt except in the most egregious cases.
That would immediately dispel my fears.
But that's not happening, instead we have a fact checker threading a needle through a slim hole by interpretating the risk and likelihood for themselves without having skin in the game.
All I'm using is Ofcoms own guidance, linked right there in the first two posts, the guidance they issued for does who fall in scope, the definitions of multi risk as defined in there, the definitions of harmful but not illegal content that would trigger it, and reasonable questions that arises from those docs like "could a child register on your site?", "might anyone ever harass another person via the site?", "could fraud occur via your site?", "might someone be racist or homophobic or transphobia via your site"?... And I conclude, given the guidance, that yes, technically they could.
Based on the guidance, and my interpretation of it as published by Ofcom, we are multi risk and medium risk... If I'm wrong, and I may be, then it's the published materials that have led me to that conclusion.
Telling me that the likelihood of receiving a fine is low, etc... really ignores the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and everything Ofcom has said about it. From that perspective the fact checking ignores the vast majority of facts, and resorts instead to speculation based on past enforcement for another Act.