News Disabling Direct Messages in the forums

[CParsons]

Hey folks,

As a result of recent changes within the UK Online Safety Act, we're going to be disabling direct messages between members of the forum. You'll still be able to contact our Administrators and our Moderators to address issues or raise concerns, but posts between regular community members will be permanently disabled today. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause for members of the community and appreciate your patience as we adapt to keep in line with the law with the least impact on your experience.

Thank you!

 

[Stuart83]

So you can't talk to each other now, forcing people to use VPN's which unlocks a much, much more murky world including the dark web etc to those it falsely protects,.

To stay within forum rules I will leave the sentiment there but can say I fail to see anything BUT what everyone and his dog is saying about this online safety act to be true.

 

[Gray]

So you can't talk to each other now, forcing people to use VPN's which unlocks a much, much more murky world including the dark web etc to those it falsely protects,.

To stay within forum rules I will leave the sentiment there but can say I fail to see anything BUT what everyone and his dog is saying about this online safety act to be true.

VPNs could never have predicted their current UK popularity.
The two biggest porn sites apparently have 47% less UK traffic.
What would that have been without VPNs? 95% down?

 

[Angle Poise-Lamp]

VPNs could never have predicted their current UK popularity.
The two biggest porn sites apparently have 47% less UK traffic.
What would that have been without VPNs? 95% down?

We'll just have to get more exciting wives!

 

[nopiano]

It’s a shame because for me it was a massive enhancement over the original site to enable peer to peer messages. I’ve had several interesting conversations with various members as a result. Thanks for retaining the archive at least.

Can we hope your lawyers will review this in due course as I think they might be over-reacting? No other groups have sent such a missive afaik.

 

[jjbomber]

It’s a shame because for me it was a massive enhancement over the original site to enable peer to peer messages. I’ve had several interesting conversations with various members as a result. Thanks for retaining the archive at least.

Can we hope your lawyers will review this in due course as I think they might be over-reacting? No other groups have sent such a missive afaik.

Exactly. I wonder what the ulterior motive is as well.

 

[RayP]

Hey folks,

As a result of recent changes within the UK Online Safety Act, we're going to be disabling direct messages between members of the forum. You'll still be able to contact our Administrators and our Moderators to address issues or raise concerns, but posts between regular community members will be permanently disabled today. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause for members of the community and appreciate your patience as we adapt to keep in line with the law with the least impact on your experience.

Thank you!

What a bizarre statement especially in a forum where no one under 18 probably posts. 😳

Are you saying two adults having a private discussion perhaps so one can visit the other to listen to their system are now unable to do so? How else do they exchange private info?

This sounds like a knee jerk reaction that needs to be reconsidered.

 

[bigboss]

What a bizarre statement especially in a forum where no one under 18 probably posts. 😳

Are you saying two adults having a private discussion perhaps so one can visit the other to listen to their system are now unable to do so? How else do they exchange private info?

This sounds like a knee jerk reaction that needs to be reconsidered.

It's not just the issue about minors. If the forum is unable to guarantee they have the means to moderate private messages effectively, they will be in trouble.

Copy pasting:

The UK's Online Safety Act 2023 places new responsibilities on online platforms, including those hosting forums, to tackle illegal and harmful content, including content shared in private messages.

Duties of Platforms:

Risk Assessment:
Platforms must assess the risks of their services being used for illegal or harmful activities, including the sharing of illegal content through private messages.

Content Moderation:
Platforms must implement measures to reduce the risk of illegal content appearing on their services, including private messages.

Illegal Content Removal:
Platforms must take down illegal content when it is identified, including content shared in private messages.

Transparency:
Platforms need to be transparent about their content moderation policies and how they address illegal and harmful content, including in private messages.

Age Verification:
Platforms may be required to implement age verification measures for certain services to protect children.

3. Private Messages and the Act:

The Act specifically addresses content communicated "privately" and "publicly".
While the specifics of how the Act applies to private messages are still being clarified, platforms are expected to take measures to address illegal and harmful content shared in private messages.
This may involve implementing measures to detect and remove illegal content, even if it's shared privately.

4. Key Considerations for Forum Owners:
Understand the Act:

Forum owners need to understand their responsibilities under the Online Safety Act and how it applies to their specific service.

Risk Assessment:
Conduct a thorough risk assessment of your forum to identify potential risks associated with user-generated content and private messages.

Content Moderation Policies:
Establish clear content moderation policies and procedures, including how you will handle reports of illegal or harmful content shared in private messages.

Transparency:
Be transparent with your users about your content moderation policies and how you are addressing risks associated with private messages.

Take Down Illegal Content:
Ensure you have procedures in place to promptly remove illegal content, including content shared in private messages.

 

[RayP]

It's not just the issue about minors. If the forum is unable to guarantee they have the means to moderate private messages effectively, they will be in trouble.

Of course they won’t. I’m a moderator on a US-based flight sim forum. If anyone objects to the content in a PM all they have to do is invite a moderator or admin member to the conversation. We would then take appropriate action if deemed necessary. A warning, a holiday or an outright ban.

Why can’t that be used here?

 

[Angle Poise-Lamp]

Of course they won’t. I’m a moderator on a US-based flight sim forum. If anyone objects to the content in a PM all they have to do is invite a moderator or admin member to the conversation. We would then take appropriate action if deemed necessary. A warning, a holiday or an outright ban.

Why can’t that be used here?

Because your laws in the US, are not the same as the new UK Online Safety Act.

 

[Jasonovich]

Of course they won’t. I’m a moderator on a US-based flight sim forum. If anyone objects to the content in a PM all they have to do is invite a moderator or admin member to the conversation. We would then take appropriate action if deemed necessary. A warning, a holiday or an outright ban.

Why can’t that be used here?

The elephant in the room is UK government censorship.

They like to dress it up as Child Protection but I ask you in the history of WHF PM has there been any such occurrences that were deemed to be illegal, particularly to children?
I stand corrected if I'm wrong.

The worse is someone bad mouthing you and afterwards they would delete the message.
I mean, big deal, we're all grown ups?

 

[nopiano]

I’m sure WHF private messages were a hotbed of illegal and harmful content in the past! How effing ridiculous!!

The RA should say there’s limited surveillance because it’s never been needed. However, there is a Report function and no evidence of previous misuse, so it’s quite acceptable to let it continue.

 

[Dave_]

It's the chilling effect of an ill conceived, broad and vaguely defined act with huge penalties for failing to comply.

It'll be easier for them just to remove to risk than trying to comply.

 

[RayP]

The elephant in the room is UK government censorship.

They like to dress it up as Child Protection but I ask you in the history of WHF PM has there been any such occurrences that were deemed to be illegal, particularly to children?
I stand corrected if I'm wrong.

The worse is someone bad mouthing you and afterwards they would delete the message.
I mean, big deal, we're all grown ups?

No there hasn’t. Ridiculous overreaction. My time here may be coming to an end. Something to ponder WHF.

 

[davidf]

I bet Facebook are exempt...

 

[R2D2]

I bet Facebook are exempt...

And AV Forums…

 

[bigboss]

I bet Facebook are exempt...

Nobody is exempt obviously. There's a key difference between Facebook whose platform is the bread and butter and it already has mechanisms to deal with it (it's a different matter that it isn't effective enough) and a forum like WHF that isn't the core business component of Future group.

 

[bigboss]

And AV Forums…

Even avforums will be better prepared to comply as that is their core business. WHF forum is not its core business at all and they're not looking to generate money from running the forum.

 

[Al ears]

No there hasn’t. Ridiculous overreaction. My time here may be coming to an end. Something to ponder WHF.

How would you know if there's no means of monitoring PM's??

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

Seems to me there's no point in getting antsy about it. The change isn't going to be reversed.

 

[RayP]

How would you know if there's no means of monitoring PM's??

It’s just the principle of ceasing an option when WHF has no evidence that its rules have ever been broken. How many times have you been alerted to this problem?

 

[Angle Poise-Lamp]

It’s just the principle of ceasing an option when WHF has no evidence that its rules have ever been broken. How many times have you been alerted to this problem?

They have to make sure they are complying with the law. The fines for not doing so can be huge and, would kill the firum. Added to which, the ending of private messaging may have been imposed by Future Publishing.

 

[RayP]

They have to make sure they are complying with the law.

Can anyone point me to the law that bans private messages on UK forums?

 

[Jasonovich]

Some sites apply age verification, such as face scan and users providing documentation such as a valid driver's license as evidence.

Sure PM in theory can still be operational if such measures were implemented to ensure a water sealed environment but this may be seen by many as a breach of their personal liberties. It appears WHF done their risk assessment and decided to steer away from these draconian measures, preferring it seems to ban PM rather than risk igniting it's user base?

 

[Angle Poise-Lamp]

How many members will actually be affected by this? I’ve been a member for 10.5 years, I’ve never sent a direct message.