Forum is now announce-only.

[MikeMC]

Unfortunately, due to the legal situation in the United Kingdom, this forum is now in an announce-only mode, effectively read-only, and with PMs disabled.

This is regrettable, but preferable than removing the forum in its entirety as it allows for existing content to remain as an archive (and the faint hope that a future government will repeal the abject stupidity that is the functional effect of the Online Safety Act).

Edit: On a bit of a rethink, the entire forum is set to moderated. Hopefully this still complies with the insanity of the OSA.

[Richard Russell]

Unfortunately, due to the legal situation in the United Kingdom, this forum is now in an announce-only mode, effectively read-only, and with PMs disabled.

Presumably Private Messages to an administrator are allowed? That ought not to count as a User-to-User (U2U) capability, I would have thought.

If for some reason PMs to an admin are not permitted, it would be desirable to publish (e.g. in a sticky post) a contact email address or similar. There needs to be some way for a member to contact an admin to report problems with the forum etc.

On a related point, the link to 'The Team' at the bottom of every forum page is currently indicating that there are no administrators, which is clearly not the case. Can that be fixed?

[Richard Russell]

Edit: On a bit of a rethink, the entire forum is set to moderated. Hopefully this still complies with the insanity of the OSA.

When I asked an AI (not the most reliable source of information I know!) it said that a fully-moderated forum still counts as User-to-User (U2U) and therefore is covered under the legislation - so for example has to be registered with OfCom. That seems illogical, since the content is determined not by the Original Poster(s) but by the moderator(s), but considering how badly the Act has been framed it wouldn't surprise me.

In the end I suppose it comes down to what degree of risk you are prepared to take. I don't think that I - being responsible for the server hosting the forum but, as a non-administrator, not its content - am vulnerable to being prosecuted and fined. But I can't even be certain about that.

[Richard Russell]

Edit: On a bit of a rethink, the entire forum is set to moderated. Hopefully this still complies with the insanity of the OSA.

As this has now been struck-out, can we please have an update on exactly what the current status of this forum is, and what users can and cannot post here? Is the policy to try to comply strictly with the letter of the Online Safety Act? OfCom has stated that 'it will take a risk-based approach to enforcement, with enforcement measures being “targeted” and “proportionate”' but that may be of limited comfort.

[MikeMC]

Edit: On a bit of a rethink, the entire forum is set to moderated. Hopefully this still complies with the insanity of the OSA.

As this has now been struck-out, can we please have an update on exactly what the current status of this forum is, and what users can and cannot post here? Is the policy to try to comply strictly with the letter of the Online Safety Act? OfCom has stated that 'it will take a risk-based approach to enforcement, with enforcement measures being “targeted” and “proportionate”' but that may be of limited comfort.

The forum is now announce-only, as originally intended. Normal (non-moderator/admin users) have read only access - leaving the content available as a reference and the forum itself available should a future government repeal the OSA (or some sensible judge decides the law is itself illegal... wishful thinking). Thus there should now be no risk to anyone. Leaving post access for mod/admin continues to allow you to announce future releases here, in a relevant location for your user base.

(You may also have noticed I've brought the Distillery back, but again, read-only.)

[Richard Russell]

The forum is now announce-only, as originally intended. Normal (non-moderator/admin users) have read only access - leaving the content available as a reference

OK, understood. I would probably have been prepared to risk leaving it fully moderated (not least because my age and health mean I am less concerned about the penalties that OfCom can impose) but I know that a few other forum owners have reacted similarly to you.

The question then arises of where people can go to get support for my versions of BBC BASIC. Basically there is nowhere at all, apart from sending me a private email which I don't encourage, and cannot guarantee to reply to. I guess the same applies to Matrix Brandy.

[Richard Russell]

Thinking about it, and re-reading the OfCom guidance, it seems to me that a support forum, whose sole purpose is to provide help to users of a specific product or products (in this case my versions of BBC BASIC), ought to be able to benefit from the "users can only interact with content generated by me or my organisation" exemption.

The phrase "content generated by" is somewhat ambiguous, but one could argue that it encompasses sources of information about my BASICs, including the manual, tutorial, example programs, source code etc. If so, it should follow that a fully-moderated forum - where only messages seeking support for BBC BASIC are approved - solely permits interaction with such content.

When I asked an AI whether a fully moderated forum is covered by the Act, the response in the affirmative would be correct in the case of, say, a fan forum where people discuss a sport or hobby or other shared interest. In such a case the users - even if moderated - will be making comments or expressing opinions intended to trigger discussion with others, not just asking for help from an expert.

Nothing is cut-and-dried, especially considering how badly the legislation was framed, but if I was the administrator of a support forum I think this would allay my concerns to a large degree.