Best Of

TheMix wrote: »

Q: Does the Online Safety Act require pre-moderation of posts?
A: No. The Online Safety Act does not explicitly mandate pre-moderation. However, Ofcom guidance states that organisations must take proportionate steps to safeguard children. The Mix has chosen full pre-moderation as a safety measure.

Nathan wrote: »

This was one of my biggest concerns about the OSA. It's not specifically written or ordered by law to "pre-moderate", but makes it where the only safe legal option is to go to the extreme and cover all bases with pre-moderation, so that no matter how someone at Ofcom interprets the vague requirements and what falls under it, it's still compliant with it regardless, even when stretched to it's most extreme definitions. This is why I think the Mix jumped to the safest option automatically, pre-moderation, which is also the most community disrupting sadly, to cover themselves and to protect the organisation.

Nathan wrote: »

I want to point out that I don't just think it's section 10, although that's the one i think played the biggest factor and is also the section i'm most familiar with from discussions at uni with IT lecturers and masters students about it. I think it's also falls under section 11, in which providers of regulated services must take all reasonable steps to ensure that their services do not facilitate harm to individuals using their services, Section 12 in which platforms must take steps to prevent children from encountering harmful content, Section 19 in which platforms must have systems in place to prevent users from encountering harmful content including through effective moderation systems, Section 21 in which providers of regulated services must assess the risks to individuals and take appropriate steps to mitigate these risks, Section 23 in which platforms must ensure that harmful content is identified and removed quickly after being posted, Section 37 in which providers must have robust content moderation systems to ensure that harmful content is quickly identified and acted upon, and section 47 in which providers of regulated services must have systems in place to ensure that harmful content is not readily accessible to users.

so_very_tired wrote: »

eylah wrote: »

so_very_tired wrote: »

You four are actually starting to do my fucking head in and that's really saying something because I quite like some of you. Take this somewhere else and like @independent_ this thread very well could be shut down if you don't shut the fuck up and take this elsewhere.

no need to be so rude is there?!

I have asked polity twice and not one you listened. I am sorry for being rude but I am asking you to take this elsewhere.

Dancer wrote: »

Nathan wrote: »

Dancer wrote: »

Nathan wrote: »

Dancer wrote: »

@BensonE @independent_

@Dancer you turn around, call me a prick, try to justify @BensonE rudeness and nastiness against me for months, then say you have screenshots yet refuse to say how i've been a prick, and because i say your not worth my time, you're calling others in for what? To drag them into something unrelated to them. Shameful.

Because I don`t want to invade other people`s privacy by sharing messages. I actually have respect for people that are worth the respect.

@Dancer now you just need morality and decency as a person, rather than starting to insult people randomly. And once again, thank you for confirming you've taken "screenshots". of what, i have no clue.

It doesn`t mean I physically have screenshots but I have had messages from members about how they feel about certain members.