Spent a while last night reading through Ofcom's Illegal Content Judgements Guidance under the #OnlineSafetyAct and I am so, so confused about what they expect us to do. I thought "don't do terrorism" would be easy to comply with, but they list the "Anarchists Cookbook" as an example of a terrorist offense. It's also an offense to "express an opinion or belief supportive of a proscribed organization" (p 25). Hamas is a proscribed organization.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/online-safety/information-for-industry/illegal-harms/illegal-content-judgements-guidance-icjg.pdf?v=387556
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from aphyr@woof.group
The #OnlineSafetyAct also bans "extreme pornography". Until recently in the UK, that included piss, restraint, and fisting; we definitely have that. Ofcom's definition (p 159) covers "obscene", realistic images of non-consensual penetration.
How do moderators evaluate consent? Any "user report which suggests that the content depicts non-consensual acts should be taken as reasonable grounds to believe that there was no consent, unless there is evidence to the contrary."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2014/dec/05/uk-pornography-law-scientific-perspective-children-safety
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from aphyr@woof.group
So, if one of our users posts an image of them having the most sweet, consensual sex imaginable, and a total rando from some other server files a report saying "That's obscene and I don't think he consented to that!", are we... required to remove their post? What on earth?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from aphyr@woof.group
It's also illegal to post images of "hanging", "strangulation", and "suffocation" (p 159) which, uh, as someone who loves a glove over his mouth, feels absurd. Of course this hinges on a UK court's determination of "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character", but are we really going to go to court over this?
I guess all of this is a moot point; every web site that allows publicly viewable pornography is, AFAICT, going to be illegal by July.
[#]OnlineSafetyAct
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from aphyr@woof.group
Speaking of strangulation being illegal, look what just showed up in the mail! I've got half a mind to pull this out during the Ofcom small community Q&A and ask if it's illegal.
Shout out to Drummer, by the way. Looooong tradition of being seized by UK mail censors. https://store.drummermen.com/product-category/subscriptions/
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from aphyr@woof.group
@aphyr Robert Mapplethorpe is rolling in his grave.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from miah@hachyderm.io
@miah IKR?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from aphyr@woof.group
@aphyr yeah... It's basically "we are going to make this so difficult to comply with, you'll just shut down, then we've banned you while still having plausible deniability" tactic
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Dodge_Otter@woof.group
@aphyr thanks for the reminder to get a print subscription started with them. 😂
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from dkub@woof.group
@aphyr I'm sure I read that Ofcom don't expect X etc to have to take action. Smells of double standards...
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from RufflySpawned@woof.group This content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).Proxy Information
text/gemini
