Online Safety Act's obligations spark concern among small site owners
'It's a disproportionate burden for small sites like ours, and the personal liability is too high’
A popular cycling forum has announced it will be closing, saying compliance with the Online Safety Act (OSA) will be an impossible burden.
LFGSS (London Fixed Gear Single Speed) has around 50,000 monthly users who post comments on a variety of topics on its discussion threads. It subsists on donations of a few hundred pounds per month.
The site's administrator, "Velocio" said the Act's broad scope and heavy penalties for non-compliance meant that LFGSS would not be able to comply.
"I can't afford what is likely tens of thousands to go through all the legal and technical hoops over a prolonged period of time," said Velocio in a post on the site.
However well intentioned, the Act risks catching community sites in its dragnet, Velocio went on.
"The Act simply doesn't care about the good we do. It's a disproportionate burden for small sites like ours, and the personal liability is too high. I can't risk my well-being and financial stability for a service that operates at a loss."
As well as the cost of complying, Velocio fears the Act could be weaponised by disgruntled users.
"In the years running fora I've been signed up to porn sites, stalked IRL and online, subject to death threats, had fake copyright takedown notices, an attempt to delete the domain name with ICANN... all from those whom I've moderated to protect community members," Velocio wrote. "I do not see an alternative to shuttering it. The conclusion I have to make is that we're done."
Velocio's decision to close the site in March, when the OSA comes into force, came after studying Ofcom’s first set of rules for online service providers subject to the Act released on Monday. The regulator estimates that 100,000 firms and site operators could be in scope.
Sites need to provide a "report" button on user generated content, process reports and any appeals, document policies and possibly scan for child sexual abuse materials (CSAM), although this is only required for larger sites or those "at high risk of image based CSAM".
This is all extra admin work, possibly requiring new tools, and some site owners will decide that it is not worth their while.
An existential threat?
Operators of individual Mastodon instances were also left wondering about the impact of the Act on the viability of operating servers on the federated social media platform, particularly as instances are linked by search capabilities.
However, tech lawyer Neil Brown of decoded.legal, who runs his own Mastodon instance, told Computing that small sites should wait for more information before pulling the plug.
"It's no surprise to me that some UK site admins feel this way. Already-stretched volunteers, and those who run community sites and services, are likely to wonder why they've been caught up in this," said Brown.
"Ofcom is working hard to produce guidance, but, so far, it has all been rather long and detailed. I'm sure that, in time, there will be summaries and other resources (official or community-driven) to help site operators navigate this new regime. We are already seeing signs of people working on these.
"Does the OSA pose an existential threat to these kind of sites? In my view, no, but the impact of change itself, and increased regulatory burdens, may be enough to lead more people to throw in the towel."