Forum with 2.6M posts being deleted due to UK Online Safety Act

Its just that Americans think that that is the default level of free speech, any extra restrictions are an affront, and any lesser restrictions are irrelevant

a) Duties to take or use proportionate measures relating to the design or operation of the service to prevent individuals from encountering priority illegal content and minimising the length of time that such content is present on the service;

b) Duties to take or use proportionate measures relating to the design or operation of the service to design and operate systems in a way which mitigates and manages the risks identified in the service provider’s risk assessment;

c) A duty to operate the service using proportionate systems and processes designed to swiftly take down (priority or non-priority) illegal content when they become aware of it (the ‘takedown duty’); and

d) A duty to take or use proportionate measures relating to the design and operation of the service to mitigate and manage the risk of the service being used for the commission or facilitation of a priority offence

---

That's a bit more than "have a think"

To pick two examples from the document you linked:

Discussion of being a sex worker would not be covered. The only illegal content relating to sex work would be if you were actively soliciting or pimping. From the document:

* Causing or inciting prostitution for gain offence

* Controlling a prostitute for gain offence

Similarly, discussion of drug use wouldn't be illegal either per se, only using the forum to buy or sell drugs or to actively encourage others to use drugs:

* The unlawful supply, offer to supply, of controlled drugs

* The unlawful supply, or offer to supply, of articles for administering or preparing controlled drugs

* The supply, or offer to supply, of psychoactive substances

* Inciting any offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

That's very different to criminalising content where you talk about being (or visiting) a prostitute, or mention past or current drug use. Those things would all still be legal content.

- Duties to take or use proportionate measures relating to the design or operation of the service to prevent individuals from encountering priority illegal content and minimising the length of time that such content is present on the service;

- Duties to take or use proportionate measures relating to the design or operation of the service to design and operate systems in a way which mitigates and manages the risks identified in the service provider’s risk assessment;

- A duty to operate the service using proportionate systems and processes designed to swiftly take down (priority or non-priority) illegal content when they become aware of it

- A duty to take or use proportionate measures relating to the design and operation of the service to mitigate and manage the risk of the service being used for the commission or facilitation of a priority offence.

- The safety duty also requires providers to include provisions in their terms of service specifying how individuals are to be protected from illegal content, and to apply these provisions consistently.

Even if the language of this law was specific, it requires so many so invasive and difficult steps, no hobbyist, or even small company could reasonably meet. But it's anything but specific - it's full of vague, subjective language like "reasonable" and "proportionate", that would be ruinous to argue in court for anyone but billion dollar companies, and even for them, the end result will be that they are forced to accede to whatever demands some government-sanctioned online safety NGO will set, establishing a neverending treadmill of keeping up with what will become "industry standard" censorship. Because it's either that, or open yourself to huge legal risk that, in rejecting "industry standard" and "broadly recognized" censorship guidance to try to uphold some semblance of free discussion, you have failed to be "reasonable" and "proportionate" - you will be found to have "disregarded best practices and recognized experts in the field".

But, short of such an obvious breach, the rules regarding what can and can't be said, broadcast, forwarded, analysed are thought to be kept deliberately vague. In this way, everyone is on their toes and the authorities can shut down what they like at any time without having to give a reason. [2]

[1] Good luck arguing over what is "reasonable" in court if the government ever wants to shut you down.

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-41523073