Mastodawn

nickchomey Dec 16, 2024

this morning I've made the choice to close 300 forum sites that have about 275k monthly active users, nearly all from the UK.

I've run forums for over 28 years, and did so to build families for those without families, to try and create a cure for social isolation and loneliness, to combat suicide, to create joy and love out of nothing but connections between people.

and it worked. it still works.

but on the 16th March 2025 I will delete the virtual servers running it all... that date is important, it's the last day before the UK Online Safety Act goes into enforcement.

I run these communities philanthropically, giving my time and money to do so, I ask nothing back, I just help build a nicer World.

but the scope of the Act is too broad, and my forums come under it... it does not matter that it's run by an individual and not a company, that it loses money every month... merely by being linked to the UK and allowing users to speak to users... it's within scope.

the penalties of non-compliance would be so devastatingly ruinous to me, that I don't see I have a choice... I must now perform a social harm to protect myself.

this is devastating.

https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/401475/

I cannot even express what these forums have achieved... the marriages, births, support for those with cancer, the love, the communities they have created.

Dee in London Dec 16, 2024

what's pretty foul is that since posting this morning, I've been hit with more bots than usual, and a lot of spear phishing attempts and PayPal "payment requested" things.

having my head slightly above the parapet immediately makes one a target for all manner of stuff.

Dee in London Dec 17, 2024

A journalist I'm speaking to (New Scientist)...

Just FYI, Ofcom and DSIT have given me the ouroboros circular run-around. I don't think anyone is happy to be associated with this crap legislation.

I don't think they wanted the bad press just before Christmas. Almost as if it were timed to vanish in the news cycle.

Article in the Daily Telegraph already done

Dee in London Dec 17, 2024

also I'll give credit to the Telegraph, I asked that they not gender me in any way or use any pronouns that reveal gender, and this goes against their style guide... but they did respect it, and allowed me to use preferred name.

their style guide is legal name and to Mr or Mrs or Miss people.

so well done them for being just a little progressive in this article entirely unrelated to gender

Emma (has_many_books of old)Jan 1, 2025

@dee this is a lovely little ray of goodness to read on new years day. I would definitely not have thought they would.

Emma (has_many_books of old)Jan 1, 2025

@dee I am also going to have to seriously consider shutting down makeourbook.com, which I think is also an unequivocally good and benign thing, for the same reasons as you say.

Dee in London Jan 1, 2025

@emma oh gosh, that's a lovely site ❤️

You're in the sweet spot of allowing file uploads whilst targeting children 😱

You don't appear to have user to user discussion / messaging though, so you may be ok and able to avoid the implications of compliance with the OSA.

Emma (has_many_books of old)Jan 1, 2025

@dee I might end up mothballing it, all the same, to raise awareness. I hate to punish my customers. But people need an absurd example of how some bright governmental spark has managed to 😱-won't-somebody-think-of-the-CHILDREN-😱 my lovely literacy project...

see also the ridiculous home education bill, second reading 8th Jan, which conflates home education with [checks notes] parents murdering their children.

Dee in London Jan 1, 2025

@emma that last sentence is so maddening, and yet I know from having watched a few bills go through that this is exactly the outcome.

I can't help reduce all of it to power and control... control over education, control over communication... I used to reduce politics to those who think collectively (put the balanced needs of all above the individual) vs those who think individually (their needs always come first)... but I think I was naive, it is and has always been about power, and to retain power control is needed... everything else is a distraction. It's upsetting to see politics of collectives being used to cement power in a way that itself causes harm to individuals and groups still trying to do a general good.

I likely have expressed this poorly.

Emma (has_many_books of old)Jan 1, 2025

@dee Expressed perfectly. Power, control... and they do it by stirring up people's deepest fears. I don't like to immediately go there, but it's exactly what *that very bad guy from the first part of the 20th century in Europe* did.

Emma (has_many_books of old)Jan 1, 2025

@dee Anyway, I am really sorry about your forums. 😢

Dee in London Dec 17, 2024

ArchiveTeam already engaged btw, I'll help them fully preserve the site

Dee in London Dec 18, 2024

Yay I'm not alone https://www.gamingonlinux.com/forum/topic/6463/

Oh, that means another cool community going offline due to the UK online safety act

Viewing topic The GamingOnLinux Forum is shutting | GamingOnLinux

Hi all, some bad news to share today. As of now, the GamingOnLinux - Forum post on GamingOnLinux.com

GamingOnLinux

Hannah (With a snake problem 🐍)Dec 18, 2024

@dee This is awful. They have no idea what they are doing with that new "Online Safety Act".
It seems like (most) politicians have no clue how anything on the internet works. But they feel compelled to do "something" so that they later can say "Hey! At least we tried 👍".

Sidenote: Anyone with "links to the UK"? I mean.... I am writing something here right now. Am I also now obliged to obey their laws? Technically it's "a link to the UK" since I could be talking to a person in the UK, right?

mirabilos Dec 16, 2024

@dee I may have to hang my hobby OS on the nail with the last law change over here too, and I hate the very idea (I may be lucky and the fact it’s not i10d may help categorise it as "not typically used by kids" so I don’t fall under that law but… whi knows)

why can’t we have nice things 🤬

a fish named dog ✡️♾️Dec 16, 2024

@dee Oh shit, I'm sorry. Every day it seems like the UK is getting closer to becoming the US, honestly. Hopefully y'all will be able to stop it before it gets to our level.

Jonathan Isom Dec 16, 2024

@dee Maybe someone else would be willing to accept that risk. May be worth seeing if someone, possibly already using your services would be willing to take over.

Brad Rosenheim Dec 16, 2024

@dee This seems like something your MP, or MPs of soon-to-be-affected members of your fora, should hear loudly and clearly. I have no idea if it is too late in the lawmaking process for that sort of thing, but bad legislation is bad legislation. Better to challenge it now than through the courts. 275k active users is a lot - that is a voice that, if unified, can be awfully loud.

Derick Rethans Dec 16, 2024

@Brad_Rosenheim @dee It is too late. Act was implemented last year. And I, and many others, wrote to our MPs.

I would probably say that I wouldn't be too worried (unless you're the size of Facebook etc; against which this law was mostly written).

OFCOM isn't particularly well staffed enough to proceed with million dollar liability claims against small operators; but that is a risk that everyone needs to weigh for themselves of course. And I also wish I wouldn't have to think of it.

😞

Dee in London Dec 16, 2024

@derickr @Brad_Rosenheim that risk is also non-zero... the number of times I've been forced to moderate someone and the subsequent anger and actions from that person.

things I've encountered are being signed up to porn sites, death threats, stalking behaviour (online and IRL), threats of violence, abuse... what the Act does is provide another weapon to those people to hurt and attack moderators and site admins, and now with huge liability and risks.

I do not imagine OfCom give a hoot about these sites, but I do believe they will be obliged to follow up on complaints, and that the complaints will be like a form of legal SWATting against those who operate communities.

the liability is far far too high, and the risk not low enough, even though I've had not one incident that the Act tries to prevent in 28.5 years of running forums.

Derick Rethans Dec 16, 2024

@dee @Brad_Rosenheim Yeah, I totally understand where you're coming from.

Annoyingly, there is another bill going through parliament which will lower more user-data protections: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/briefing-data-use-and-access-bill-hl/

Briefing: Data Use and Access Bill

Executive Summary The new Data (Use and Access) Bill drops several concerning aspects of the previous Data Protection and Digital Information Bill.

Open Rights Group

Deborah Preuss, pcc 🇨🇦Dec 16, 2024

@dee Dee, I'm so sorry to hear that you need to do this. And I totally understand: "Low risk" of being ruined by a malicious party is not "NO risk" and you need to take care of your responsibilities.

Thanks for what you've facilitated 'til now. 🙏

I've no doubt, you will do other, also good, things after this, in other ways. ❤

Russ Garrett Dec 16, 2024

@dee I was never a member of LFGSS but I've known of it for decades and I know many people who spoke fondly of it. Thank you for all you've done.

I rather suspect the end result of the Online Safety Act won't be as bad as it looks, but OFCOM has continued to leave small sites in limbo with their guidance, and at any rate I wouldn't want to run one without the protection of a limited company in future...

Dee in London Dec 16, 2024

@russss officers of a limited company are still liable according to the Act.

and the risk is low on the face of it, but the liabilities are high.

however... it's a forum. I've taken moderator decisions and had individuals get so angry they applied to ICANN to revoke the domain name, I've banned people and received death threats... I've run so many large communities and forums as an individual that I've been the target of lawsuits from angry individuals.

this time it's different... the liabilities too high, and OfCom are unpredictable but would follow up on complaints, and angry people moderated to ensure safe communities will weaponise the Act against site owners.

it sucks, this ends 28 years of something incredibly successful, a huge social good, because I can't accept all that liability being weaponised by the very people that we moderate to keep communities safe.

Don Holloway Dec 16, 2024

@dee That sounds like a tough choice that you shouldn't have had to make.

I am sorry. I have run forums before. A lot of work, a lot of conflict, but often rewarding (not financially though.

I don't know what the different communities are, but would be happy to help create a new home for some of them if they align with my callings.

Beady Belle Fanchannel Dec 16, 2024

@dee maybe the @BBCRadio4 @BBC_News_Labs @BBCRD
wants to see this …

AlisonW ♿🏳️‍🌈♾️Dec 16, 2024

@dee
I'm just reading through the act and, frankly, I think that *every* company is going to consider it too onerous to comply with. The expansiveness of the scope even captures Github and such ffs. Although it regularly mentions businesses, giving a possibility that only limited companies might be targets, it's not clarified further. "[T]he size and capacity of the provider of the service" is mentioned many times though in determining actions, so an individual would be treated differently to Meta, for example. The £18MM figure though remains the scare tactic. (I've been bankrupt and wouldn't recommend it), This law may have good intentions but it is a blunderbuss instead of sensibly targeted all in the name of "won't someone think of the children". Gah!
I'm so sorry you've found yourself in this position, it must really suck that your 28+ years of work comes to an end in this awful way.

Dee in London Dec 16, 2024

@AlisonW thanks Alison, and yes it's a bit crazy, I never thought it would pass in that form, but the implementation of it seems even messier than the Act itself... I already have a demanding day job, so all of the work I did to run communities was squeezed in around that, so even trying to campaign and bring awareness is more than I can give. it's a mess.

AlisonW ♿🏳️‍🌈♾️Dec 16, 2024

@dee
Found the definition of 'provider' which really sucks:
"A provider of a regulated user-to-user service or a regulated search service is a “UK provider” of the service if the provider is—
(a)an individual or individuals who are habitually resident in the United Kingdom, or
(b)an entity incorporated or formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom."
Given the exemptions for news orgs, texts, and email, one could almost think this was targetted against people wanting to not be controlled by governments. The costs involved will be very substantial and the Act seems to think that everyone is in it for the money so have profits to cover these new expenses.

AlisonW ♿🏳️‍🌈♾️Dec 16, 2024

@dee
Reading on further it's very clear that the _intended_ targets are multinationals with massive numbers of users, eg in the fees sections “qualifying worldwide revenue” is used a number of times. Thing is that isn't the way the Act was drafted, so yes it will catch personal sites whereever someone permits users to post comments and others to reply to them (eg almost every damn blog out there!) Taking them all down is, so far as I can see, your only safe option until someone at OFCOM or in government realises they've gone too far. 😠

groff 🇺🇦Dec 16, 2024

"The illegal content duties apply to all regulated user-to-user and search services under the Act, no matter their size or reach."

AlisonW ♿🏳️‍🌈♾️Dec 17, 2024

@geoffl @dee
Yes, but the definition of who is "regulated" does affect the numbers a lot.

groff 🇺🇦Dec 17, 2024

It's all regulated unless exempt. All forums are included.

"The online safety regime applies to internet services that enable users of the service to generate, share or upload content (such as messages, images, videos, comments, audio) on the service that may be encountered by other users of the service.This includes services that enable user interactions."

They all need nominated responsible individual, risk assesments, documentation, moderation, content removal, appeals process, lots more.

AlisonW ♿🏳️‍🌈♾️Dec 16, 2024

@dee
Oh, and it passes because very few MPs have any idea what it all means. Lobby fodder.

Christian Sievers Dec 16, 2024

@dee so sorry to hear. What’s happening to the data, can you donate it to archive.org or some UK archive?

Dee in London Dec 16, 2024

@Sie I'll consider the public facing, but a lot of forums is private, these things are icebergs. I don't know that I have the right to change the visibility by making it public

Christian Sievers Dec 16, 2024

@dee @Sie not sure if there is a (UK) institution that would be willing to take this on, but there might be the option to keep private conversations private. To archive doesn’t mean necessarily to make it public.

Pinging #digipres who might know a way to preserve this history.

Colin Macleod Dec 16, 2024

@dee I'm wondering if this will hit people running Mastodon servers in the UK too, like the one I'm posting from?
Also my own little web gateway to #usenet ?
#OnlineSafetyAct #fediverse

Dee in London Dec 16, 2024

@CGM yes, I believe they would.

AlisonW ♿🏳️‍🌈♾️Dec 16, 2024

@dee @CGM
sfaict from my reading the thing, it would _like_ to affect federated systems, but it doesn't. There is no controlling mind/person for the Mastodon *service* per se.
The largest servers where using the local timeline is encouraged to the exclusion of external servers could theoretically get caught.

Colin Macleod Dec 16, 2024

@AlisonW @dee Hmm, but you don't join the abstract Mastodon service, you join a specific server. That server certainly does have a controller who can decide who else to federate with, so I can see them being held responsible for the content accessible there.

AlisonW ♿🏳️‍🌈♾️Dec 16, 2024

@CGM @dee
The fact that you may join an existing server or create your own doesn't affect or create a central point though. The very 'meshness' of it would make it impossible to act on specific posts except where that post is on a server you control. I don't see any control option here which is " proportionate and technically feasible". I may, of course, be proven wrong.

Guitarsophist Dec 16, 2024

@dee Would this law also endanger people running Mastodon instances?

Dee in London Dec 16, 2024

@jredlund yes, if you have "links to the UK" like UK people running it, hosting in the UK, or that most of your users are in the UK.

although if you're entirely in Europe and some very high % of members are from outside the UK... then you're probably passing a reasonable threshold for not having links to the UK.

derptron Dec 16, 2024

@dee Yeah, a lot of countries are starting to pass laws that make it difficult to run a server people use to communicate. I think we need a solution that doesn't require your profile and commentary be hosted by anyone. If everyone is their own host publishing their own content that is just integrated then stuff like this just doesn't apply. Then it's all just your content, even other peoples' comments on your content are hosted somewhere else by other people that can be filtered by the user.

Kevin Lyda Dec 17, 2024

@crazyeddie You're always going to be using an ISP and/or data centre. And they'd have the same restrictions.

derptron Dec 17, 2024

@lyda Your ISP doesn't know what is being transmitted unless you're silly and don't encrypt it. Doesn't know who you're transmitting with if you're using a proxy system like a vpn or tor/i2p.

The data center one is an issue I haven't resolved for myself. You can self-host any profile or comment server that might be made for this, but when a comment or something goes viral you'll be stomped out of existence...before you even go viral, you'll just be gone.

P2P might help. It can be solved.

Dave Dec 16, 2024

🙁

Jay (they/them)Dec 16, 2024

@dee So sorry to hear you're being put in this position. It utterly sucks that so much good stuff gets wrecked by culture war moral panic BS.

Lydia Schoch Dec 16, 2024

@dee I am so sorry.

Kazinator Dec 16, 2024

@dee these laws are obviously nothing but a clamping down on free speech, under the pretense of promoting online safety. That forum sites will shut down is part of the calculation.

@dee yeah I'm guessing i have to block the entire UK now

@dee or more likely just ignore them

Seán na bhFritíortha Dec 17, 2024

@dee
All of these moral panics about the Internet are poorly thought out (like Australia's upcoming ban on children/adolescents) but they also entrench the idea of Internet as only big business. Most of it is these days, but still a limited vision.

RomanceReviews Dec 17, 2024

@dee I’m so sorry. It sounds like a heartbreaking choice to have to make.

cube Dec 17, 2024

@dee do you want to preserve / archive some or all of that content ?

@textfiles can probably help you with that

db0 Dec 17, 2024

@dee instead of dismissing everyone to the wind why not arrange with someone outside the UK to find a suitable fallback fediverse forum for people to migrate to? Having a direction from you would go a long way to avoid fragmenting these communities you've been building for so long. When #reddit performed its enshittification my community moved because I directly told them where to go instead as opposed to those who just did directionless protests.

@dee This should be sent to Parliament and read there.