Shhhhhh, you can't say that!

Running a site where people can discuss or comment on topics of interest is about to become a lot more risky, because of the Online Safety Act, which has been introduced to "protect children and adults online. It puts a range of new duties on social media companies and search services, making them more responsible for their users’ safety on their platforms."

Ofcom has created an online Regulation Checker to help those operating web services understand whether they're obligated to comply. That decision is consequential because the penalty for non-compliance can be severe – a fine of £18 million ($22 million) or 10 percent of their global revenue, whichever is greater. There's also the potential of criminal liability for senior managers who have ignored obligations or lied about compliance.

"I think there's a reasonable interpretation of the words written by Parliament that, while a user-to-user service comprising posting comments relating to a blogpost is exempt, if a user-to-user service allows someone to comment on anything else, the exemption no longer applies, and the service is in scope of the Online Safety Act," Brown explained.

The question that hasn't been answered is "If a user makes an 'off-topic' comment that could be seen as offensive, then will the operator of the service be at risk of legal action?

Ofcom says:

"Content will be exempt if it comprises comments or reviews 'relating to' provider content. The Act makes no mention of how closely connected to the provider content the comment or review must be to benefit from this exemption."

Most sites will ignore the regulations (or not even know about them) and will run the risk of legal action being taken against them. Some forums have already announced they are closing down due to the OSA. Some people will self-censor themselves to avoid the risk of being fined/jailed. This legislation is a massive threat to free speech, and it will take a few years until we find out what the real impacts are.

The root of the problems with the OSA is that it was framed and enacted by legislators who think that the “internet” consists only of the platforms of a small number of huge tech corporations. So they passed a statute that supposedly would deal with these corporate miscreants – without imagining what the unintended consequences would be on the actual internet of people using the technology for genuinely social purposes. - James Naughton (The Guardian)

I am a member of a trade union, who run a closed discussion forum for members. They have just announced that they will be closing their forum due to the costs of being compliant with the legislation.

So, if you run a site like this I hope you have completed your risk assessment and put appropriate controls in place?

With regard to Bristol City Council, they are exempt as they come under this category "if it is provided by a public body, such as Parliament, a UK public authority, or foreign government". Perhaps I should set myself up as an independent country, and then I could be exempt under the "foreign government" category.