Death Of A Forum: How The UK’s Online Safety Act Is Killing Communities

We’ve been warning for years that the UK’s Online Safety Act would be a disaster for the open internet. Its supporters accused us of exaggerating, or “shilling” for Big Tech. But as we’ve long argued, while tech giants like Facebook and Google might be able to shoulder the law’s immense regulatory burdens, smaller sites would crumble.

Well, it’s already happening.

On Monday, the London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed (LFGSS) online forum announced that it would be shutting down the day before the Online Safety Act goes into effect. It noted that it is effectively impossible to comply with the law. This was in response to UK regulator Ofcom telling online businesses that they need to start complying.

This includes registering a “senior person” with Ofcom who will be held accountable should Ofcom decide your site isn’t safe enough. It also means that moderation teams need to be fully staffed with quick response times if bad (loosely defined) content is found on the site. On top of that, sites need to take proactive measures to protect children.

While all of this may make sense for larger sites, it’s impossible for a small one-person passion project forum for bikers in London. For a small, community-driven forum, these requirements are not just burdensome, but existential.

LFGSS points out that the rules are designed for big companies, not small forums, even as it’s likely covered by the law:

we’re done… we fall firmly into scope, and I have no way to dodge it. The act is too broad, and it doesn’t matter that there’s never been an instance of any of the proclaimed things that this act protects adults, children and vulnerable people from… the very broad language and the fact that I’m based in the UK means we’re covered.

The act simply does not care that this site and platform is run by an individual, and that I do so philanthropically without any profit motive (typically losing money), nor that the site exists to reduce social loneliness, reduce suicide rates, help build meaningful communities that enrich life.

The act only cares that is it “linked to the UK” (by me being involved as a UK native and resident, by you being a UK based user), and that users can talk to other users… that’s it, that’s the scope.

I can’t afford what is likely tens of thousand to go through all the legal hoops here over a prolonged period of time, the site itself barely gets a few hundred in donations each month and costs a little more to run… this is not a venture that can afford compliance costs… and if we did, what remains is a disproportionately high personal liability for me, and one that could easily be weaponised by disgruntled people who are banned for their egregious behaviour (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)… I do not see an alternative to shuttering it.

The conclusion I have to make is that we’re done… Microcosm, LFGSS, the many other communities running on this platform… the risk to me personally is too high, and so I will need to shutter them all.

But it’s not just the LFGSS that’s shutting down, but also Microcosm, the open source forum platform underlying LFGSS which was apparently created by the same individual and offered similar local community forums for others beyond just the London biking community.

Apparently, Microcosm is hosting approximately 300 small communities, all of which will either shut down or have to migrate within three months. The developer behind all of this seems understandably devastated:

It’s been a good run, I’ve administered internet forums since 1996 having first written my own in Perl to help fans of music bands to connect with each other, and I then contributed to PHP forum software like vBulletin, Vanilla, and phpBB, before finally writing a platform in Go that made it cost efficient enough to bring interest based communities to so many others, and expand the social good that comes from people being connected to people.

Approximately 28 years and 9 months of providing almost 500 forums in total to what is likely a half a million people in that time frame… the impact that these forums have had on the lives of so many cannot be understated.

The peak of the forums has been the last 5 years, we’ve plateaued around 275k monthly users across the almost 300 websites on multiple instances of the platform that is Microcosm, though LFGSS as a single community probably peaked in the 2013-2018 time period when it alone was hitting numbers in excess of 50k monthly users.

The forums have delivered marriages, births, support for those who have passed (cancer being the biggest reason), people reunited with stolen bikes, travel support, work support, so much joy and happiness and memorable experiences… but it’s also been directly cited by many as being the reason that they are here today, the reason they didn’t commit suicide or self-harm. It’s help people get through awful relationship breakups, and helped people overcome incredible challenges with their health.

It’s devastating to just… turn it off… but this is what the Act forces a sole individual running so many social websites for a public good to do.

This is why we’ve spent years warning people. When you regulate the internet as if it’s all just Facebook, all that will be left is Facebook.

Policymakers have repeatedly brushed off warnings about these consequences, insisting that concerns are overblown or merely fear-mongering from big tech companies looking to avoid regulation. But it’s not. And we’re seeing the impact already.

The promise of the internet was supposed to be that it allowed anyone to set up whatever they wanted online, whether it’s a blog or a small forum. The UK has decided that the only forums that should remain online are those run by the largest companies in the world.

Some might still argue that this law is “making the internet safer,” but it sure seems to be destroying smaller online communities that many people relied on.

It may be too late for the UK, but one would hope that other countries (and states) realize this and step back from the ledge of passing similar legislation.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: microcosm

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Death Of A Forum: How The UK’s Online Safety Act Is Killing Communities”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
130 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Wanna know why?
“…and while some of them are much larger companies with much greater resources, they all have their breaking point somewhere. I worry that, unless the tide turns soon, the Internet I fell in love with may cease to exist, and in its place, we will have something closer to a souped-up version of TV – focused largely on passive consumption, with much less opportunity for active participation and genuine human connection. “

-Leif K-Brooks

Now, I doubt it’s what they’re intending, but…🤷

mikep1984 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

The UK government wanted this to be world leading legislation. It is intended to apply to any service that even a single British person can access (even if the service attempts to block all UK residents). How that is practically enforced is anyone’s guess. I doubt Ofcom will try. But they do have the power to block non-conforming websites. Ofcom have too much power & responsibility. They already cover TV, radio & the postal system. Now this as well. A Ministry of Truth.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

mikep1984 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Yes, pretty much. I think the whole point of the law is to impose broafcast-style regulation on the internet. Why else give Ofcom (our media & communication regulator) responsibility?

It is not a surprise the government would want to tightly regulate an allegedly ungoverned online space, as it has form in the past. Historically, Great Britain (contrary to popular belief) hasn’t been a beacon of free speech. I think the Americans implementing the First Amendment speaks volumes in that regard.

Whenever a means of spreading ideas has become popular, it has been subject to tight regulation. We had seditious libel in the 18th century to stop revolutionary speech. We had heavy newspaper taxes in the 19th century to stop the spread of cheap newspapers. Theatre censorship was active from 1737 to 1968 under the Lord Chamberlain.
Radios (even crystal sets & car radios) required a licence until 1971. Pirate radio stations (despite being listened to by 23 million people) were criminalised.

So the OSA is on form for the UK.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Good news it looks like news about this is picking up alot of steam so I hope the UK gov and Ofcom panic and backtrack when it backfires hard, I think there will be alot of Judicial review and legal challenges to this while there huge backlash from the public when sites start blocking the UK leading to the UK gov backtracking hard and bringing the law more in line with the EU DSA and getting rid of the AV parts but there going to be ton of damage.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

“Some might still argue that this law is “making the internet safer,” but it sure seems to be destroying smaller online communities that many people relied on.”

I saw some quote from one of the politicians (or Ofcom representative, I forget) who were in favor of the bill that claimed that not even ‘unsupervised adults’ should be allowed to use the internet as it currently is, so… yeah. That’s probably the point.

Anonymous Coward says:

That where the EU DMA, applied to limited to a specific set of gatekeepers, is some better approach. They’ve certainly quickly realized that ruling the whole internet is not possible nor wanted, and be able to comply with dozen of dense laws should be reserved to structures that have the money to do so. Because adding so much laws on an already complex internet is clearly doing more harm than good.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Up next: move the goalposts

I’m sure that when presented with these forums shutting down, defenders of the act will move the goalposts from “this won’t cause small communities to go away” to “community owners are overreacting and are shutting them down unnecessarily parenthesis-because-they’re-just-being-mean-to-me-in-order-to-prove-a-point-not-because-there’s-any-actual-risk-end-parenthesis”.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Out of curiosity, wouldn’t it be possible for those sites to be hosted in, for example, the U.S., which would be beyond UK nonsense? I stepped away from the hosting business 25 years ago and have not a clue about current options or costs. AWS? Bluesky? One of the distributed hosting arrangements that I don’t understand?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

If I remember right one of the clauses is that you fall under the OSA if you have a ‘significant amount of UK users’, which I am assuming is worded that way so that it can be applied at will. Honestly, as it looks they’d probably say your site falls under the OSA even if you actively blocked IPs from the UK, somehow.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

True. To correct myself: The CURRENT internet might die one day. But it’d be next to impossible to truly turn it into glorified television.

And that’s not getting into decentralized platforms, alternate internets as a whole, et cetera..

It’d just hurt losing so much of what is here now, though.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Tbf, the current internet and/or decentralized platforms won’t die too.

“But it’d be next to impossible to truly turn it into glorified television.

And that’s not getting into decentralized platforms, alternate internets as a whole, et cetera..

It’d just hurt losing so much of what is here now, though.”

It evolves. It may get different over time, but it will remain the same.

Anonymous Coward says:

They should have made an exception for forums run by non profits and forums members under say 100k users but politicans don’t care or else they only talk to big tech company’s or company’s who can afford pr and donate to politicians. The same thing can happen in the USA as small forums and nonprofits close
as they can’t to employ mods or legal reps if they have to deal with kosa regulations
The whole point of the web is to provide a voice for everyone not just meta or big tech
Small forums dont make a profit but they provide a forum for small minoritys and all kinds of groups including LGBT minoritys
that provide support and advice to young people

This is a red light warning
To America it could happen to small non profit groups in USA too
We have already seen police arrest people in the UK just for making political statements
Free speech on the web is as important as the right to protest and discuss politics and other subjects

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Well done tools of the tech companies, you do your owners proud

Journalists: This law will be devastating to smaller platform while doing nothing more than entrenching the larger platforms who can afford the resources to comply with it.

Politicians: You’re just saying that because you’re shilling for Big Tech, which means anything you say can be ignored!

Big Tech: Oh no, not the briar patch, anything but that!

mikep1984 (profile) says:

Re:

Actually mainstream newspapers have been the main cheerleaders for this law (presumably as it supposedly shackles Big Tech) with barely a murmur of criticism. Virtually all MPs voted in favour.

Ironically, I remember an Ofcom representative saying several years ago that social media was already 95% of the way to meeting the requirements of this law.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

G says:

The solution is to make private commnuities, where people only get in through invitation. With terms of use that protect the website itself.

No public access of any kind. No reproducing any post, by screenshot, text, or anything.

Go. Private.

If you want to be mean, list all the politicians that voted for this law. Install them in a blacklist SHARED betwene every single private website/forum that bans them forever. No login, no access, nothing. For life.

England is the country where young girls have been abused and raped for decades. Everyone knew. The police looked the other way so they would not be accused of being “racist”.

And this turd of a country that has no trouble sleeping knowing they do NOTHING to save abused and raped girls wants to tell the citizens they MUST be responsible when it comes to safety ?

England : go F yourelf.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Law Nerd says:

Read the HN discussion for insights

There was a large discussion of this a few days ago on HN here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42433044 where numerous people who have actually read the law pointed out that complying with this is not nearly as hard as the forum owner is making it out to be.

Several of the provisions only apply to large sites (7 million monthly active UK users), and several only apply to medium sites (700k monthly active UK users).

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anarchic Teapot (user link) says:

"Women and girls"

I tried to read through the presentation of the Act, I really did, but the constant harping on “protecting women and girls” was a huge red flag to me.

Firstly, because it’s all children, not just girls, who are at risk.

Secondly, and it’s a HUGE second, is because this is in fact a transphobic dog whistle.

These forums are being shut down because the Government is kowtowing to a tiny lobby of hate-filled bigots who don’t give a damn about all the women and girls who *will* be hurt by being isolated and unable to reach out.

I’m fairly certain that the majority of studies show that bullying, grooming, stalking etc. all happen on major platforms like Facebook, not your local library club’s online chat.

Howard NYC says:

One By One, The Lights Went Out

when you look at a nighttime image of the Korean Peninsula from Low Earth Orbit it is easy to spot the dividing line between North and South, dictatorship and democracy, etc

darkness to the north, street lamps to the south

too bad freedom of speech is being stifled by way of wrecking a zillion printing presses

don’t worry, you’ll get accustomed to the silence, the darkness, just ask those enslaved peasants of North Korea how happy they are…!

g’bye British Isles… good try at democracy but too many of the ruling elite having decided you do not deserve it

this might be the fate of the USA as well but not this soon… we got till at least Vance decides to stay in the White House and assigns himself the job title of President-4-Life in 2029…

and then the lights will go out across North America, one by one… we will be happier in the dark, in the silence… just like you will be

Leave a Reply to mikep1984 Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt needs your support! Get the first Techdirt Commemorative Coin with donations of $100
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...