zlacker

>>ColinW+(OP)
Right or wrong I think many have misread the legislation or read poor coverage of it given people's reasoning.

Much of things boils down to doing a risk assessment and deciding on mitigations.

Unfortunately we live in a world where if you allow users to upload and share images, with zero checks, you are disturbingly likely to end up hosting CSAM.

Ofcom have guides, risk assessment tools and more, if you think any of this is relevant to you that's a good place to start.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...

>>IanCal+7b
it's not that simple - illegal and harmful content can include things like hate speech - worth a longer read... https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/14/online_safety_act/

If I ran a small forum in the UK I would shut it down - not worth risk of jail time for getting it wrong.

>>docfla+Gb
The new rules cover any kind of illegal content that can appear online, but the Act includes a list of specific offences that you should consider. These are:

    terrorism
    child sexual exploitation and abuse (CSEA) offences, including
        grooming
        image-based child sexual abuse material (CSAM)
        CSAM URLs
    hate
    harassment, stalking, threats and abuse
    controlling or coercive behaviour
    intimate image abuse
    extreme pornography
    sexual exploitation of adults
    human trafficking
    unlawful immigration
    fraud and financial offences
    proceeds of crime
    drugs and psychoactive substances
    firearms, knives and other weapons
    encouraging or assisting suicide
    foreign interference
    animal cruelty

>>docfla+bc
> hate

Is it really just listed as one word? What's the legal definition of hate?

>>seposi+Ac
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United...

>>tene80+ze
Thanks.

> Something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation.

This probably worries platforms that need to moderate content. Sure, perhaps 80% of the cases are clear cut, but it’s the 20% that get missed and turn into criminal liability that would be the most concerning. Not to mention a post from one year ago can become criminal if someone suddenly decides it was motivated by one of these factors.

Further, prejudices in terms of language do change often. As bad actors get censored based on certain language, they will evolve to use other words/phrases to mean the same thing. The government is far more likely to be aware of these (and be able to prosecute them) than some random forum owner.

>>seposi+qf
It's important to understand that the act we're talking about does not make owners simply liable for stuff that happens on their sites, nor does it require them to stop everything. It's about what the risks are of these things happening, and what you do about that.

In fact, if you have had a place that people can report abuse and it's just not really happening much then you can say you're low risk for that. That's in some of the examples.

> Not to mention a post from one year ago can become criminal if someone suddenly decides it was motivated by one of these factors.

That would impact the poster, not the site.