Sortadefinitely π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ ΏπͺπΊπΊ
@sortadefinitely.bsky.social
Welsh, living in England. Wolves fan. Passionate about motorsport β F1, IndyCar, IMSA, WEC. Learning to be a better ally, person, human. Rejoiner with no patience for prejudice.
Or as the rest of us would call it, "pushing far-right propaganda". I wonder if they will actually call the person in charge "Reich Minister of Propaganda", as per precident.
February 6, 2026 at 4:46 PM
Or as the rest of us would call it, "pushing far-right propaganda". I wonder if they will actually call the person in charge "Reich Minister of Propaganda", as per precident.
I wonder if these people even realise the positive mental impact of small hobby forums, or the critical impact of smaller Wikis for research and learning. Actually, I won't wonder, they just don't think beyond the ends of their own noses.
January 19, 2026 at 8:42 AM
I wonder if these people even realise the positive mental impact of small hobby forums, or the critical impact of smaller Wikis for research and learning. Actually, I won't wonder, they just don't think beyond the ends of their own noses.
And it's apparently just "suspended" not "closed" still, so the Midland Metro is an illegal blockage of the railway. In theory at least!
January 18, 2026 at 12:20 PM
And it's apparently just "suspended" not "closed" still, so the Midland Metro is an illegal blockage of the railway. In theory at least!
Actually...
The Snow Hill - Low Level line not only survived Beeching, but was shown in Beeching II as a "line to be invested in". It was internal BR politics due to shifting region that did for it - suddenly it was run by "the opposition" who deliberately ran it down. Murdered by BR themselves.
The Snow Hill - Low Level line not only survived Beeching, but was shown in Beeching II as a "line to be invested in". It was internal BR politics due to shifting region that did for it - suddenly it was run by "the opposition" who deliberately ran it down. Murdered by BR themselves.
January 18, 2026 at 12:19 PM
Actually...
The Snow Hill - Low Level line not only survived Beeching, but was shown in Beeching II as a "line to be invested in". It was internal BR politics due to shifting region that did for it - suddenly it was run by "the opposition" who deliberately ran it down. Murdered by BR themselves.
The Snow Hill - Low Level line not only survived Beeching, but was shown in Beeching II as a "line to be invested in". It was internal BR politics due to shifting region that did for it - suddenly it was run by "the opposition" who deliberately ran it down. Murdered by BR themselves.
And typically, Wikipedia's response basically boils down to "we're special", and they (oh yes, and a few other people they name maybe) should be exempt. However, there's lots of smaller Wikis out there that will never be named, and again, the people who can afford to comply will not have to.
January 11, 2026 at 9:27 AM
And typically, Wikipedia's response basically boils down to "we're special", and they (oh yes, and a few other people they name maybe) should be exempt. However, there's lots of smaller Wikis out there that will never be named, and again, the people who can afford to comply will not have to.
It's just completely crazy stuff. For example, how will teenagers actually engage with appropriate expertise to learn more about a subject if they're banned from every forum and every Wiki on the Internet?
And how would the VPN clause work for households with VPN applied at the endpoint router?
And how would the VPN clause work for households with VPN applied at the endpoint router?
December 22, 2025 at 8:02 AM
It's just completely crazy stuff. For example, how will teenagers actually engage with appropriate expertise to learn more about a subject if they're banned from every forum and every Wiki on the Internet?
And how would the VPN clause work for households with VPN applied at the endpoint router?
And how would the VPN clause work for households with VPN applied at the endpoint router?
I loved the Outer Circuit. It was just completely mad, and offered something totally different from everything else.
But then I wish Silverstone would sweep up some of the gravel and send people via Bridge Bend again, just for the occasional British GP.
But then I wish Silverstone would sweep up some of the gravel and send people via Bridge Bend again, just for the occasional British GP.
December 5, 2025 at 8:30 PM
I loved the Outer Circuit. It was just completely mad, and offered something totally different from everything else.
But then I wish Silverstone would sweep up some of the gravel and send people via Bridge Bend again, just for the occasional British GP.
But then I wish Silverstone would sweep up some of the gravel and send people via Bridge Bend again, just for the occasional British GP.
Places are not the same as local authorities named after that place.
Or else places like Huddersfield or West Bromwich (or controversially, places like Brighton, Chester or Blackburn as they only have local authorities that are "and" or "with" somewhere else) don't exist...
Or else places like Huddersfield or West Bromwich (or controversially, places like Brighton, Chester or Blackburn as they only have local authorities that are "and" or "with" somewhere else) don't exist...
September 4, 2025 at 4:25 PM
Places are not the same as local authorities named after that place.
Or else places like Huddersfield or West Bromwich (or controversially, places like Brighton, Chester or Blackburn as they only have local authorities that are "and" or "with" somewhere else) don't exist...
Or else places like Huddersfield or West Bromwich (or controversially, places like Brighton, Chester or Blackburn as they only have local authorities that are "and" or "with" somewhere else) don't exist...
So you don't agree that copying a photograph or other work without the permission of the copyright holder is an offence? Interesting.
July 30, 2025 at 9:10 PM
So you don't agree that copying a photograph or other work without the permission of the copyright holder is an offence? Interesting.
The OSA also doesn't say "criminal offence", just "offence" - which is a legally distinct difference to my layperson understanding.
July 30, 2025 at 7:50 PM
The OSA also doesn't say "criminal offence", just "offence" - which is a legally distinct difference to my layperson understanding.
Infringement of copyright under the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Copyright is a "property right" (in section 1, CDPA), and OSA Section 59(6) says that 59(5) doesn't apply to "the infringement of intellectual property rights", the wording is sufficiently different to create doubt.
July 30, 2025 at 7:49 PM
Infringement of copyright under the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Copyright is a "property right" (in section 1, CDPA), and OSA Section 59(6) says that 59(5) doesn't apply to "the infringement of intellectual property rights", the wording is sufficiently different to create doubt.
In case anyone is wondering, that's Section 59 paragraph 5c.
"An offence is within this subsection if..."
Another Act, an Order in Council, Orders, Rules and Regulations of Ministers, Devolved subordinate legislation.
So, literally ANYTHING. The offence is "experienced", so it could be in a DM.
"An offence is within this subsection if..."
Another Act, an Order in Council, Orders, Rules and Regulations of Ministers, Devolved subordinate legislation.
So, literally ANYTHING. The offence is "experienced", so it could be in a DM.
July 30, 2025 at 6:38 PM
In case anyone is wondering, that's Section 59 paragraph 5c.
"An offence is within this subsection if..."
Another Act, an Order in Council, Orders, Rules and Regulations of Ministers, Devolved subordinate legislation.
So, literally ANYTHING. The offence is "experienced", so it could be in a DM.
"An offence is within this subsection if..."
Another Act, an Order in Council, Orders, Rules and Regulations of Ministers, Devolved subordinate legislation.
So, literally ANYTHING. The offence is "experienced", so it could be in a DM.
Specifically, section 59 paragraph 5c.
July 30, 2025 at 6:34 PM
Specifically, section 59 paragraph 5c.
"Non-priority illegal content".
July 30, 2025 at 6:30 PM
"Non-priority illegal content".
Perhaps starting with the "and any other law, ever" part being removed. Β£18M potential fines because someone copied a photo from their gran's Facebook and posted it on a forum? That's what people REALLY aren't understanding.
July 30, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Perhaps starting with the "and any other law, ever" part being removed. Β£18M potential fines because someone copied a photo from their gran's Facebook and posted it on a forum? That's what people REALLY aren't understanding.
Which isn't an option for those of us who have run small forums on niche topics aimed at and based in the UK for about 25 years.
We've never had an issue, but all it takes is someone to post something that's against any law, ever, and the OSA comes into play, and I have Β£18M fine hanging over me.
We've never had an issue, but all it takes is someone to post something that's against any law, ever, and the OSA comes into play, and I have Β£18M fine hanging over me.
July 30, 2025 at 5:57 PM
Which isn't an option for those of us who have run small forums on niche topics aimed at and based in the UK for about 25 years.
We've never had an issue, but all it takes is someone to post something that's against any law, ever, and the OSA comes into play, and I have Β£18M fine hanging over me.
We've never had an issue, but all it takes is someone to post something that's against any law, ever, and the OSA comes into play, and I have Β£18M fine hanging over me.
I think as soon as the onboard footage comes to light it will be very interesting to see the steering angles.
June 1, 2025 at 3:36 PM
I think as soon as the onboard footage comes to light it will be very interesting to see the steering angles.
And what is "social media" anyway? Are we back to all "user-to-user services" and going to drag all of the tiny forums etc run by volunteers through yet more?
May 7, 2025 at 5:16 PM
And what is "social media" anyway? Are we back to all "user-to-user services" and going to drag all of the tiny forums etc run by volunteers through yet more?
And all the time, 99.9999% of all websites caught up in the OSA stupidity can't afford that sort of thing.
It's more and more clear that Ofcom don't understand the poisoned chalice they've had thrust at them.
It's more and more clear that Ofcom don't understand the poisoned chalice they've had thrust at them.
April 29, 2025 at 9:40 PM
And all the time, 99.9999% of all websites caught up in the OSA stupidity can't afford that sort of thing.
It's more and more clear that Ofcom don't understand the poisoned chalice they've had thrust at them.
It's more and more clear that Ofcom don't understand the poisoned chalice they've had thrust at them.
Done the one I've been working on. I just hope it's good enough!
But in my experience, (d) is probably the most common option. People still think if they're not an "adult oriented site" then it doesn't affect them thanks to the publicity and headlines being far from the truth.
But in my experience, (d) is probably the most common option. People still think if they're not an "adult oriented site" then it doesn't affect them thanks to the publicity and headlines being far from the truth.
March 17, 2025 at 10:34 PM
Done the one I've been working on. I just hope it's good enough!
But in my experience, (d) is probably the most common option. People still think if they're not an "adult oriented site" then it doesn't affect them thanks to the publicity and headlines being far from the truth.
But in my experience, (d) is probably the most common option. People still think if they're not an "adult oriented site" then it doesn't affect them thanks to the publicity and headlines being far from the truth.
Well, yes. You hardly need the wisdom of Solomon to imagine a scenario where a small number of like-minded individuals set up their own private forum site for nefarious purposes and then claim they don't have to comply with the law because they drop under thresholds.
February 26, 2025 at 10:42 PM
Well, yes. You hardly need the wisdom of Solomon to imagine a scenario where a small number of like-minded individuals set up their own private forum site for nefarious purposes and then claim they don't have to comply with the law because they drop under thresholds.
Absolutely.
The law itself is completely ridiculous, and Ofcom have been handed a poisoned chalice with it. It doesn't help that they're supping from it like a <insert euphemism here>, and are focussing on helping the organisations who have the resources to deal by themselves mostly.
The law itself is completely ridiculous, and Ofcom have been handed a poisoned chalice with it. It doesn't help that they're supping from it like a <insert euphemism here>, and are focussing on helping the organisations who have the resources to deal by themselves mostly.
February 26, 2025 at 10:21 PM
Absolutely.
The law itself is completely ridiculous, and Ofcom have been handed a poisoned chalice with it. It doesn't help that they're supping from it like a <insert euphemism here>, and are focussing on helping the organisations who have the resources to deal by themselves mostly.
The law itself is completely ridiculous, and Ofcom have been handed a poisoned chalice with it. It doesn't help that they're supping from it like a <insert euphemism here>, and are focussing on helping the organisations who have the resources to deal by themselves mostly.
Which is a huge porn site with staff and lots of money. No-one has ever said it's impossible for them.
What people are saying is that it's impossible for the huge numbers of tiny community forums which are also caught up by the OSA to implement the same solutions yet they are expected to legally.
What people are saying is that it's impossible for the huge numbers of tiny community forums which are also caught up by the OSA to implement the same solutions yet they are expected to legally.
February 26, 2025 at 10:02 PM
Which is a huge porn site with staff and lots of money. No-one has ever said it's impossible for them.
What people are saying is that it's impossible for the huge numbers of tiny community forums which are also caught up by the OSA to implement the same solutions yet they are expected to legally.
What people are saying is that it's impossible for the huge numbers of tiny community forums which are also caught up by the OSA to implement the same solutions yet they are expected to legally.
To be fair, Ofcom's guidance (though not the OSA) is aimed solely at big players, which isn't at all what user-to-user actually means. It's all "tech companies" and zero concept of the huge numbers who aren't even micro-businesses, just community sites or societies run by volunteers doing our best
February 26, 2025 at 9:50 PM
To be fair, Ofcom's guidance (though not the OSA) is aimed solely at big players, which isn't at all what user-to-user actually means. It's all "tech companies" and zero concept of the huge numbers who aren't even micro-businesses, just community sites or societies run by volunteers doing our best
...and be in the spirit of compliance with supporting women and girls. In most cases, there is no "legal entity that proves the service", and the feedback form is just ridiculously skewed towards the Facebooks and Twitters of the world, there's no option in there for "your guidance is useless".
February 26, 2025 at 1:22 AM
...and be in the spirit of compliance with supporting women and girls. In most cases, there is no "legal entity that proves the service", and the feedback form is just ridiculously skewed towards the Facebooks and Twitters of the world, there's no option in there for "your guidance is useless".