zlacker

> Those 'niche' forums you mention are explicitly excluded from the Act.

No, they are not.

> Our research indicates that over 100,000 online services are likely to be in scope of the Online Safety Act – from the largest social media platforms to the smallest community forum. We know that new regulation can create uncertainty – particularly for small organisations that may be run on a part time or voluntary basis.

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

>>jadams+(OP)
Yes, they are in scope but a "small community forum" has nothing to do but to fill and keep a few self-assessments just in case. There is no requirement to implement age verification across the board (hence why current official guidelines target only porn sites in relation to age verification).

>>mytail+l3
> a few self-assessments just in case

Ah right, just a couple of forms how bad can it possi...

> Step 1: identify the 17 kinds of priority illegal content that need to be separately assessed

lol.

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

>>jadams+(OP)
I take it you didn't read your own link, the language used is "services".

If you happen to be running the UK panty wetters forum from your own server, then you have a problem, but grandma Jessie's knitting circle is explicitly not in scope.

YOUR link goes on to say

>the more onerous requirements will fall upon the largest services with the highest reach and/or those services that are particularly high risk.

Even if your forum falls in scope, you're only required to do a risk assessment, if at that stage you are likely to have a lot of underage users, then there might be an issue.

However, if you're not an adult site, you only need to comply by providing the lowest level of self certified check. Handily, most of the big forum software providers have already implemented this and offer a free service integration.

Storm meet teacup.

>>jadams+n6
>identify the 17 kinds of priority illegal content that need to be separately assessed

If you're a site with lots of child users, or if your site holds pornography.

>>grepno+E9
> I take it you didn't read your own link, the language used is "services".

I do love it when people lie and then try to get sassy when called out.

> Even if your forum falls in scope, you're only required to do a risk assessment, if at that stage you are likely to have a lot of underage users, then there might be an issue.

I also like it when people who accuse others of not reading prove themselves incapable of reading - as pointed out below, what I linked is required regardless of the assumed age of your userbase.

>>jadams+n6
You are being facetious as "priority illegal contents" are the sort that are the ones that are obviously very unlikely to be encountered on a "normal" small community forum. So this is no more than a box-ticking exercise, really.

Regarding age verification, the OSA is explicit states that if you ban all such content in your T&Cs you do NOT need to have age verification.

>>grepno+0a
No. What you have in mind is probably a Children’s Access Assessment[1], which is not what I linked.

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

>>mytail+xa
> this is no more than a box-ticking exercise, really

You won't mind getting rid of it, then.