Avatar for crack_squirrels

crack_squirrels

Member since Aug 2023 • Last active Dec 2024
  • 0 conversations
  • 8 comments

Most recent activity

  • in Forums
    Avatar for crack_squirrels

    What about :4. Waiting for the Ofcom guidelines in January to come out to see whether this is actually the death knell it may feel like (and it might not be anything to really worry about).

    Does Ofcom say what they classify as "large" (as most of the guidelines apply to this category) I feel like that is for big social networks not fairly popular but niche forums.

  • in Forums
    Avatar for crack_squirrels

    merging the forums to make it foreign enough to leave you alone

    They are already going to leave it alone. Ofcom does not have its sights set on a relatively small impractical bicycle forum.

  • in Forums
    Avatar for crack_squirrels

    Yeah from talking to lawyer friends it seems like this is a really disproportionate response.

    Lawyer Mate: I went to a conference by the lead woman in charge of implementing OSA
    Me: should we worry or not
    Lawyer Mate: We as in who
    Lawyer Mate: I mean if you run a social network maybe
    Lawyer Mate: Or like online video game
    Lawyer Mate: That is really high on the enforcement agenda
    Lawyer Mate: A mere forum whilst technically captured
    Lawyer Mate: Will be low on enforcement agenda
    Lawyer Mate: And require minimal measures beyond what they are doing already
    Lawyer Mate: I agree with the assessment that it could be weaponized by dickheads
    Lawyer Mate: But ultimately you are quite correct it's doesn't require that much
    Lawyer Mate: And besides the guidance on compliance is not fully out
    Lawyer Mate: I think the draft guidance is
    Lawyer Mate: And shows it's quite simple for most to achieve compliance
    Lawyer Mate: But it depends on what service you offer
    Lawyer Mate: What you need to achieve for a porn site, Vs social network Vs Kids video game are very different to a mere forum
    Lawyer Mate: I expect there will be some guidelines issued for standard forum providers so that its clear what they do and don't have to do

  • in Forums
    Avatar for crack_squirrels

    There's a GOV.UK explainer page here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer

    Whilst I doubt the act will be particularly useful, I am not sure how it threatens small communities really other than making sure you moderate and respond to complaints.

  • in Forums
    Avatar for crack_squirrels

    How exactly does this work? From skimming the article it seems like as long as you respond to people reporting horrendous behaviour and revenge porn, have an active moderation team, and complying with Ofcom request, it shouldn't change much? What exactly have I missed here - IE how does this add any more administrative overhead than say, responding to DMCA requests.

    Also, could the site be set up and owned by a Ltds so that if they did get fined, the risk is to the company not anyone personally?

    Terrorism
    Harassment, stalking, threats and abuse offences
    Coercive and controlling behaviour
    Hate offences
    Intimate image abuse
    Extreme pornography
    Child sexual exploitation and abuse
    Sexual exploitation of adults
    Unlawful immigration
    Human trafficking
    Fraud and financial offences
    Proceeds of crime
    Assisting or encouraging suicide
    Drugs and psychoactive substances
    Weapons offences (knives, firearms, and other weapons)
    Foreign interference
    Animal welfare

    Surely most of these things are against the forum rules anyway and any fines would be only levied at forums who repeatedly don't bother to try and take stuff down?

    I'm looking over some of the supporting document, most of the requirements seem to be only applicable to large providers, not small communities.

    The ones that do apply:

    Providers should have systems and processes designed
    to review and assess content the provider has reason
    to suspect may be illegal content (part of its ‘content
    moderation function’)

    This is just having a moderation system, surely?

    Providers should have systems and processes designed
    to swiftly take down illegal content and/or illegal
    content proxy of which they are aware (part of their
    ‘content moderation function’), unless it is currently
    not technically feasible for them to achieve this
    outcome.

    All forums have this anyway

    All providers of U2U and search services should have
    complaints systems and processes

    All forums have this anyway, maybe needs be formalised

    Providers should handle complaints about suspected
    illegal content in accordance with their content
    prioritisation processes a

    Pretty sure any forum admin would respond to PMs about this with haste.

    Without going through the full document it seems like if you have a small, moderated forum with responsive admins most of this shouldn't really affect you. I think the legislation is more targeted at large providers who allow shitloads of terrible stuff through without accountability, and smaller providers who don't really bother moderating their own content properly or ignore it when someone complains their ex uploaded nudes etc.

    I'm not sure forum software (i.e. microcosm) is really threatened by the act and as long as it provides moderation tools, surely it's up to the people that run the boards to be liable.

    It seems like an incredible amount of value could be lost, and perhaps reaching out to Ofcom directly to establish compliance and dialogue could be a better solution - I doubt very much that they're just going to hit people with huge fines without first trying to rectify the problem.

  • in Mechanics & Fixin'
    Avatar for crack_squirrels

    Yeah, they are both for fixed gear. Just trying to work out my frame BB standard and shell width as a starting point (without disassembling). I think it's BSA 68mm if that's the most common nowadays, it's a Quella singlespeed frame (but not one of their current ones). Might give them a ring. The Lasco CF12 according to this review is "Compatible with 103mm JIS type bottom bracket, 170mm compatible with 3/32in chains, 165mm compatible with 1/8in chains", and on the FK55 SantaFixie page they claim "111 JIS square taper bottom bracket recommended" but I am not sure in what way they "recommend" it.

    Does this mean my current BB likely has spindles that are too short? How does one calculate all this stuff to make sure I have the correct chainline? My rear wheel is an older Miche Xpress but surely track wheels all have the same width?

  • in Mechanics & Fixin'
    Avatar for crack_squirrels

    Generally speaking, if you switch a JIS crankset for another JIS crankset, will your chainline be unaffected? Or do different cranksets sit differently on the taper itself? Thinking of replacing my Lasco CF12 for a FK55 CNC, but not sure whether this will affect my chainline and it's an £80 experiment. If it did affect chainline, what would be there remedy? A different width BB?

  • in Mechanics & Fixin'
    Avatar for crack_squirrels

    good chainline

    What exactly do you mean by this? I thought it was adjusted per bike/wheel/frame etc?

Actions