Is it about to get harder to moderate a forum?

[Sput]

So, if I've gotten the right end of the stick from this article, it looks like if you're in the UK and your forum is used by a lot of children then you'll have to get your moderators checked out with the "He's not a paedo" service from october. That'd surely have horrible implications for someone like Asa (let's face it, it's mainly under 18s that frequent TVF) if he wanted to add a moderator after that time.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/04 ... oderators/

This is baffling to me for 2 reasons:
1. You don't know the demographic that'll sign up for your forum, and even if you did the information given probably wouldn't be reliable.
2. It's more likely they'd pose as kids and just use the forum rather than have a highly visible role

[lukey]

Couple of things: the article uses the wording "employ a barred person for a regulated role, such as moderating children's sites." I'm not sure having someone you know as a part-time mod would fulfil that. Additionally, the law's language is for sites used "wholly or mainly by children" - rather than 'quite a few 15 year olds'. The fact it's also up to individuals to submit themselves to it suggests its all a load of posturing with little enforcement, and is probably more about the people moderating Newsround's site than the wider interwebs.

[Sput]

Well half the problem is how you define 'mainly by children' - is that 50.01%?

The new law includes as a regulated activity "moderating a public interactive communication service which is likely to be used wholly or mainly by children".

The employment part did make me wonder exactly what they meant, and it's still not clear to me (that's what always scares me about this sort of thing, the ambiguity that people can hide behind) because presumably something like DS didn't set out to be an organisation but wind up being one, and that precedent could be used to any website that starts to get traction.

[marksi]

Well half the problem is how you define 'mainly by children' - is that 50.01%?

The new law includes as a regulated activity "moderating a public interactive communication service which is likely to be used wholly or mainly by children".

The employment part did make me wonder exactly what they meant, and it's still not clear to me (that's what always scares me about this sort of thing, the ambiguity that people can hide behind) because presumably something like DS didn't set out to be an organisation but wind up being one, and that precedent could be used to any website that starts to get traction.

The government has become quite good at passing dubious and unclear laws recently; the "extreme porn" ban of last week (applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland) doesn't actually define what "extreme" is in any clear way, but seems to allow it up to a jury to decide.

[Charlie Wells]

In short I think it's impractical and generally unenforceable.

I think the key part is "for an organisation to knowingly employ" as I interpret this as a business/charity paying someone to moderate. In theory in order to pay someone they'll need to know the real person's name, which would allow them to make any checks. Otherwise with volunteers who moderate you only have their word they are who they say they are, and in any case if they are overseas making checks could be impossible.

Also there's nothing to stop children from using forums where the company behind it is overseas and therefore exempt from the forthcoming requirements.