Shepherd Posted January 19 Posted January 19 Just been reading an article linked on the Versys forum about forums closing down due to this new legislation. @Stu, is this going to affect tbmf? https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/14/online_safety_act/ I can understand tightening up on illegal stuff, but it sounds it's enveloping all the little niche forums too. Quote
S-Westerly Posted January 20 Posted January 20 7 hours ago, Shepherd said: Just been reading an article linked on the Versys forum about forums closing down due to this new legislation. @Stu, is this going to affect tbmf? https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/14/online_safety_act/ I can understand tightening up on illegal stuff, but it sounds it's enveloping all the little niche forums too. Typical (of any) government overreach. Using a piledriver to crack a nut and thought for unintended consequences. 3 Quote
Simon Davey Posted January 20 Posted January 20 I don't think TMBF has a big enough user base, although a risk assessment may be necessary just in case Ofcom call for it. 2 Quote
bonio Posted January 20 Posted January 20 I've not read the act but from what I've taken away from the article, it's no concern. The most we'd have to do is come up with a risk assessment, and it would simply say risk is low and the mitigation is handled by moderation. And then nothing else would happen because ofcom aren't going to waste their time investigating tmbf. After all they have spent years building up a suite of complex processes that ensure they hardly get anything done at all. 2 3 Quote
Steve_M Posted January 20 Posted January 20 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Simon Davey said: I don't think TMBF has a big enough user base, although a risk assessment may be necessary just in case Ofcom call for it. I’ve just completed the online “Does this apply to your website?” Questionnaire (Link on this page) with my understanding of the forum’s function. The outcome was that it does apply. There was no question about the size of the user base. Edited January 20 by Steve_M 1 1 2 Quote
Stu Posted January 20 Posted January 20 14 minutes ago, Steve_M said: I’ve just completed the online “Does this apply to your website?” Questionnaire (Link on this page) with my understanding of the forum’s function. The outcome was that it does apply. There was no question about the size of the user base. And I also did the same and it says it doesn't apply Either way I'm not worried too much about it all 8 Quote
Bender Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Where you lot been, I raised this a bit back with stu and he's fine with it so that's good enough for me Obviously @Tiggiejust fell over. 1 2 1 Quote
husoi Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Just another phoking arse covering ticking box exercise. 1 Quote
Steve_M Posted January 20 Posted January 20 2 hours ago, Stu said: And I also did the same and it says it doesn't apply Either way I'm not worried too much about it all I bow to your greater knowledge … Quote
Simon Davey Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Crikey, if there wasn't TMBF, I'd have to do something else with my time, maybe marrowjoanna or something...... 1 Quote
RideWithStyles Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Ive not looked at the thing properly because it’s another load of bs. the thing I wonder if the reasons of the two different answers from Stu and Steve m is the info or at least the interpretation of the question? to be honest I thing there is much bigger and worst fry should be sorted out like (content creators, posters , general people) on FB,X,YT…. 1 Quote
rob m Posted January 20 Posted January 20 2 hours ago, husoi said: Just another phoking arse covering ticking box exercise. 22 minutes ago, RideWithStyles said: Ive not looked at the thing properly because it’s another load of bs. It's mad isn't it? Imagine parents wanting to protect their children from online paedophiles, abusers and radicalisers. Woke nonsense. PC gone mad. Whatever the Daily Heil says it is today. Maybe those parents who have had their children killed by online groomers in recent years are overreacting and the Online Safety Act should be scrapped as it's a box ticking exercise? Seriously though, the Online Safety Bill is much needed and this forum (with the rest of the internet) isn't exempt from the Act. Children may access this forum (for exampIe, I can access it offline and read most of the posts) so being careful what you post online is a prerequisite isn't it? Once you've hit the 'send' button it's out there for everyone to see. Own it. If it's racist, prejudiced, inciteful or unlawful then accept whats coming to you. If it's complies with the law then you're golden. 3 Quote
Stu Posted January 20 Posted January 20 4 hours ago, Steve_M said: I bow to your greater knowledge … I wouldn't! I could have it wrong 6 Quote
S-Westerly Posted January 20 Posted January 20 4 hours ago, rob m said: It's mad isn't it? Imagine parents wanting to protect their children from online paedophiles, abusers and radicalisers. Woke nonsense. PC gone mad. Whatever the Daily Heil says it is today. Maybe those parents who have had their children killed by online groomers in recent years are overreacting and the Online Safety Act should be scrapped as it's a box ticking exercise? Seriously though, the Online Safety Bill is much needed and this forum (with the rest of the internet) isn't exempt from the Act. Children may access this forum (for exampIe, I can access it offline and read most of the posts) so being careful what you post online is a prerequisite isn't it? Once you've hit the 'send' button it's out there for everyone to see. Own it. If it's racist, prejudiced, inciteful or unlawful then accept whats coming to you. If it's complies with the law then you're golden. My issue is defining "hateful" among others. There's been some well published stuff on that front which is a bit chilling. Prejudice is another very broad brush - I'm prejudiced against trans men demanding the right to compete in women's sports. Does that make me a danger to society? I'd say not but...... 4 Quote
Bender Posted January 20 Posted January 20 5 hours ago, rob m said: It's mad isn't it? Imagine parents wanting to protect their children from online paedophiles, abusers and radicalisers. Woke nonsense. PC gone mad. Whatever the Daily Heil says it is today. Maybe those parents who have had their children killed by online groomers in recent years are overreacting and the Online Safety Act should be scrapped as it's a box ticking exercise? Seriously though, the Online Safety Bill is much needed and this forum (with the rest of the internet) isn't exempt from the Act. Children may access this forum (for exampIe, I can access it offline and read most of the posts) so being careful what you post online is a prerequisite isn't it? Once you've hit the 'send' button it's out there for everyone to see. Own it. If it's racist, prejudiced, inciteful or unlawful then accept whats coming to you. If it's complies with the law then you're golden. That's great but it's who's definition of the law at any given time, can a library be held to account if someone goes into one and reads something that hurts their feelings because that's the way it's going, now I get there are some lines but they shift constantly and it appears that what's ok for some to say or type it's not for others. 3 Quote
Fiddlesticks Posted January 20 Posted January 20 There's a famous bit of logic that goes: Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do this. Deliciously seductive. 2 Quote
Mawsley Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Just ban Six's account for life and that'd ensure everyone here is safe. 1 1 Quote
Bender Posted January 20 Posted January 20 13 minutes ago, Mawsley said: Just ban Six's account for life and that'd ensure everyone here is safe. Ohhh you missed that event I take it....... 2 Quote
Mawsley Posted January 21 Posted January 21 6 hours ago, Bender said: Ohhh you missed that event I take it....... 2 Quote
RideWithStyles Posted January 21 Posted January 21 (edited) 15 hours ago, S-Westerly said: I'm prejudiced against trans men demanding the right to compete in women's sports. Does that make me a danger to society? I'd say not but.... I agree no matter what mentally they think of themselves I have no problem with but would it be fair to others? Id say gov body may Call it ..”doctoring” and doping of the body to gain an advantage in competitive sports at best. totally ignoring any special decompensation changes. would it be correct or fair To go the other way? Women to change to men (it does happen) would it be fair to compete against men or even women still with hormone changes….not as simple nor fair as it seems. realistically there would have to be a different category of the sport and rules like paraplegic or disability does. nothing wrong with that and it would be fair, to be honest for me is more worthy, wholesome and humbling to watch these people do it. Edited January 21 by RideWithStyles 2 Quote
S-Westerly Posted January 21 Posted January 21 10 hours ago, Bender said: Ohhh you missed that event I take it....... Thought he'd been very quiet! Obviously missed the excitement. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.