UK Online Safety Bill... if it passes, I may have to shutter LFGSS

I'm arranging an online meeting with my MP atmo. Aware of the general picture from the thread. Is there any specific problem one should raise? I would encourage other lufgussers to do the same.

You could use my follow up as a general talking point... That harm hasn't occurred on the forum or is rare and actively moderated. But that the burden the bill outlines is disproportionate for small communities and forums run by individuals or local groups.

That the bill should apply to companies above some threshold only, or have lower or zero requirements for individuals and community groups.

Examples of community groups are neighborhood chat groups (small forums for people who live in a post code), or shared interest groups (like Mumsnet before it was huge or things like lfgss).

That large social media and commercially owned discussing forums are regulated isn't a problem, those entities can bear the cost and compliance requirements. But as the bill has precisely the same cost responsibilities for small community groups that are the grass roots of community groups... the bill should be progressive and only apply at a certain threshold and individuals and small charitable groups below any commercial threshold should be exempted.

The Eu is a regulatory super-power, the UK isn’t. US companies will comply with GDPR, they’ll choose whether it’s convenient to apply UK regulation or (more likely) say “we comply with GDPR so this isn’t relevant”.

Absolutely. I was merely pointing at the logic of the legal mechanism ... Not saying it will/would/should work or condoning one or the other.

Suspect that Mumsnet will cope. It's the small niche and community forums that may suffer or collapse under the weight of the requirements.

That said, running a club or a community group is a complex . business .

I suspect it will drive consolidation of Uk club sites on US hardware with a US contact, and achieve nothing other than driving money and accountability off-shore

Even in the EU would be fine. Professionally, a new law like this would probably be good news for my company but it’s still moronic.

Hey @anidel could you point me to the page with the link for donations please?

Sure mate, here all the info you need

https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/289326/

Thanks a lot, I was searching for it but couldn't find it. Really appreciated.

I missed this. As others have said, it's most likely that at this stage the Bill is badly drafted and will have unintended consequences, although I'd guess any eventual Act also would. As far as I'm aware, petitions are generally a total waste of time. KT Bee's advice to talk to campaigning organisations is the best. I've been through this sort of thing a few times with other things, like proposed legislation that was a threat to cycling in London, and I saw how tireless the CTC was in fighting against proposed changes to the Highway Code. Support from MPs is also good, but unless you're lucky and they're already an expert in the subject area in question, they mostly won't really understand the issue(s) and won't be very effective unless there's something very specific they are happy to do. The relevant knowledgeable organisations are the best ones to contact and work with.

driving money and accountability off-shore

Bit late to this... but this is business as usual in Toryland, surely?

How hard would it to get this reported in the news media as an issue around further consolidation in the social media space? Facebook has been calling for regulation for quite some time and this is a clear example where regulations favour Facebooks position with its ability to pay and deploy regulations.

Probably not hard, but I'm allergic to any kind of media attention given the last couple of years of my personal life.

Donation made. Will think of a way to raise this with my MP.

Dear Cliveo’s MP

If you don’t save lfgss I will have too much time on my hands and bother you continually.

You don’t want that to happen.

Yours

@cliveo

Remind them of your role in their most recent (successful) re-election campaign.

And tell them you know where they live...

Donation made - can't imagine this place not existing.

Latest issue of Private Eye had a small piece on this legislation and how poorly it was drafted, you could perhaps give them some more context on the unintended consequences

Thanks Oliver! Good campaigning orgs will often be writing briefing for MPs, meeting with officials and ministers and will sometimes draft amendments for MPs / Lords to propose. I suggested a couple up thread. If they’re not the right ones they may well be able to direct you to the key ones.

The major campaigning orgs seem to have come together here

https://saveonlinespeech.org/

If you'd ever received an online death threat, issuing of which these days seems as casual as popping out for a pint of milk, you might feel differently.

My brother in law's a high court judge (is that a line from Withnail and I?) So I'll see if he can help. Busy guy though.

My MP, Catherine West, acknowledged my email and sought a response from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport.

In essence I can meet with the impact team, but they assure me that Ofcom will apply rules reasonably and proportionately.

Here's the text...

Caroline Dinenage MP
Minister of State for Digital and Culture
4th Floor
100 Parliament Street
London SW1A 2BQ
E:enquiries@dcms.gov.uk
http://www.gov.uk/dcms

Catherine West MP
catherine.west.mp@parliament.uk
24 June 2021
Your Ref: ZA11082
Our Ref: MC2021/11750/SR

Dear Catherine,

Thank you for your correspondence of 9 June, on behalf of your constituent, Mr Kitchen
of REDACTED, regarding the Online Safety Bill's effect on forums run
by individuals. Mr Kitchen also wrote in the same terms to the Secretary of State for Digital,
Culture, Media and Sport and the Online Safety Bill Analysis team and I am replying to all three
emails.

As Mr Kitchen is aware, we published the Online Safety Bill in draft on 12 May, marking a major
milestone in the development of a new regulatory framework to tackle online harms.
The new regulatory framework will apply to companies or individuals, such as the forum run by
Mr Kitchen, who provide services which host user-generated content or enable user interaction,
as well as search engines.

Many people experience harm through online platforms and we must ensure that this
framework can tackle this, whether the platform is provided by a company, or individual.
However, in order to protect small, low-risk services, regulatory expectations on services will be
reasonable and proportionate to the severity of the potential harm posed and the resources
available to the service. If the risk of harm on a platform is low, and the platform in question has
little capacity, then regulatory burdens should also be minimal.

We have also included additional safeguards in the legislation to support small and medium
sized enterprises. These would apply to individuals who operate in-scope services. For
example, Ofcom, the independent regulator who will oversee the framework, will be under an
obligation to create codes of practice which are feasible and which cater for all service
providers, whatever their size and capacity. Furthermore, Ofcom will have a legal duty to
assess the impact of its codes of practice and other significant proposals on businesses and
wider society which would include individuals within scope of the regime.

Ofcom will take a proportionate and targeted approach to monitoring and enforcement. It will
focus on the services where the risk of harm to users is highest. It will seek to engage
collaboratively with companies and individuals to help them understand their new duties, and
what improvements might be needed, before initiating enforcement action, where this is
required.

As Mr Kitchen noted, we have also published an impact assessment of the Bill on industry,
government and wider society. The government is continuing to engage with stakeholders to
better understand the potential impacts of the policy, ahead of a final stage impact assessment
which will be published upon the introduction of the Bill. The evidence and insights he provides
are extremely valuable and we will seek to incorporate these into our further work.

In addition, to further improve our assessment of the impacts of the policy, the analytical team
is engaging with affected organisations to understand costs that services expect to face to
ensure compliance with the online harms framework. If Mr Kitchen would be willing to, the
analytical team would like to arrange a time to meet and discuss the implications for him as an
individual operating an in-scope service. This would include a discussion of the costs incurred
operating his service under the status quo and any costs he expects to incur under the new
regime. Any information provided would be used to improve our assessment of the impact of
the Bill on individuals. If this is something he would be interested in, we would be grateful if he
would contact us again at soh-analysis-team@dcms.gov.uk and we can arrange a time at his
convenience in the coming months.

I hope Mr Kitchen and yourself find this information useful.

With best wishes,

Caroline Dinenage MP
Minister of State for Digital and Culture

"we could ruin you but we promise we won't"

This seems to be the attitude with which a lot of legislation is getting created. Far-reaching and with few if any protections against misuse.

A promising start.

Just trust us (and every successive government).