New Forum Terms of Service published

[xantia_v6]

The forum administrators have updated the Terms of Service (previously called the Acceptable Usage Policy). The new rules can be found HERE.

This update was triggered by our need to become compliant with the UK Online Safety Act (2023).

We have taken the opportunity to update other sections to reflect current practice on the forum or to improve clarity.

The previous version can be found (for reference) HERE

If you wish to comment on the new version, you may reply here, or use the contact-us link at the bottom of the page.

[Stonehopper]

The fear machine takes another bite from free speech.
Please remove me and any data appertaining to myself from FCF.

[xantia_v6]

The fear machine takes another bite from free speech.
Please remove me and any data appertaining to myself from FCF.

Just for our reference, which specific change in our terms of service are restricting your free speech?

[Stonehopper]

Ah! There it is.

This was written in reaction to the influxes of the Online Safety Act, which has become a bane to individuals wishing to communicate to one another about subjects which have absolutely nothing to do with online safety aimed at protecting minors and vulnerable people.

I rail against such impositions from government, just as I do with increases in fuel duties with 'added VAT'. I have removed my self from two other club subscriptions, one of which has a 'committee' with hipocrisy and hubris at its heart. That club has lost around ninety members, all of whom have left due to their online forum being closed down, a forum in which many members logged on to for some banter, humorous in the main, and none of it applicable to any 'online safety'.

And yet, that clubs forum is no longer available to members. I and many others left, subscriptions cancelled. An alternative forum was started up and has grown from strength to strength.

Unless people stand up for their rights to free speech, then all will be subjected to being monitored and silence due to the perceived threat of 'offending' someone else.

This comment is neither religious, hateful, or discriminatory in any way shape or form, nor intended to 'offend' any individual who may read it, and purports to section 'H' of the 'New rules' regarding "Type of illegal content". It is an unnecessary inclusion. Backsides are being covered.

[xantia_v6]

I share your frustration with the loss of online forums due to the Online Safety Act and GDPR. In many cases, forum owners have over-reacted, as (depending on the nature of the forum), the requirements are not unreasonably onerous.

Quoting from the OFCOM site https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -explainer

The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:

• child sexual abuse
• controlling or coercive behaviour
• extreme sexual violence
• extreme pornography
• fraud
• racially or religiously aggravated public order offences
• inciting violence
• illegal immigration and people smuggling
• promoting or facilitating suicide
• intimate image abuse
• selling illegal drugs or weapons
• sexual exploitation
• terrorism

I cannot remember any of those getting onto this forum in the 20 odd years that I have been around it.
Mostly we have needed to provide written procedures and communicate some of them to the members.

[wurlycorner]

Seems a very strong reaction to the addition of clauses that state the forum doesn't accept 'promotion of terrorism and CSAM' tbh...

[Richard_C]

I was away last week so only just reading this and responding.

I find FCF to be the "best behaved" of any of the (admittedly few) online groups I have participated in. Anyone can of course leave FCF for any reason, but if you don't like the online safety act or the various associated guidance documents, get cross with the legilators not with the people who implement it.

Moderators and administrators are volunteers, and should never be required to go out on a limb and override legislation and guidance with their own interpretation. FCF isn't resourced or "lawyered up" like Meta and others. By publishing the new rules and moderating (as they do) with a light touch they have taken a pragmatic course which will protect FCF and have a barely noticable impact on forum users - they should be commended for this.

(Along the way we have had laws to prevent us from baiting bears, carrying a sword, driving sheep through the City of London, driving a car while drunk, smoking in the pub, having bald tyres, sacking women for being pregnant, and many other things in the pursuit of progress but we obey, most of us willingly. The online safety act is but a small addition to the list.)

[Stonehopper]

To quote Richard: "I find FCF to be the best behaved . . " Quite so. And it is also a fact that the other online forums I frequent (counted on the fingers of one hand) do not engage in any of the list of things from OFCOM, save one: "Controlling or coercive behaviour". Even that is ambiguous, in so far as 'controlling' is concerned. There is no coercive behaviour exercised on FCF, why should there be? There is no reason for it.

With regard to 'getting cross with legislators', I think in the current political climate there is much to be 'cross' about, and complaints are widespread, but are any of the legislators even willing to listen? No. One can wear away the pencil in voting booths attempting to have ones say, does anything change? Historically it does not.

The online safety act (OSA) may well have good intentions, and whilst I recognise that volunteers work hard to play by the rules, some 'rules' have been put in place for a different reason - obedience, at any cost. Just one example:
A brand named motorcycle club I have been in for years recently had a committee level discussion (all volunteers) about their fears of 'possibly' being chargeable as individuals of tens of thousands of pounds should any of the forums comments be seen to breach the OSA. The membership were not addressed about the 'issue', but the result was notification to the membership that as of a specific date in March 2025, the online forum would be "Read only". No comments between members can be submitted. The online members forum was history: "you have insufficient privileges to reply here". Such online forums can be the lifeblood of small communities, without them and the often friendly banter between members who know each other, a club can be negatively affected. In the case above, people left. Cancelled their club subscriptions. Who wins from that situation? The legislators.

There are many other forums, club based and otherwise, that do not consider any changes are necessary in their rule books, as they simply do not have any input that could possibly amount to breaching any Acts from parliament - until a police officer comes along while you're waiting for the bus and begins questioning you about your thoughts. It sounds ludicrous, it is ludicrous, but it has happened.

We are living in an age of turmoil and some are becoming frightened of their own shadows. There is no need. What needs to be cautioned against, is the overbearing authoritarianism from the powers that be. It affects us all. As the stroke of a pen can cause untold fears amongst the innocent. The reason? Obedience. It's a moral maze.