Discussion

@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk · 5 days ago

Will this be the first site block under the #OnlineSafetyAct?

> Ofcom has today (6 January 2026) informed the provider of [a] suicide forum that, having reviewed the available evidence, we are working towards issuing a provisional notice of contravention (‘Provisional Decision’) in relation to breaches of the Online Safety Act (‘the Act’).
> ...
> As such, we have informed the provider of this forum that we would be prepared to make an application to the court for business disruption measures, where appropriate and proportionate, swiftly after the period for making representations on the Provisional Decision has elapsed, if any non-compliance we may identify in our Provisional Decision continues.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/investigation-into-an-online-suicide-discussion-forum-and-its-compliance-with-duties-to-protect-its-users-from-illegal-content

Light

@light@noc.social replied · 5 days ago

@neil
>a suicide forum
Sounds very optical for them.
I wonder what the site is?

Neil Brown

@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk replied · 5 days ago

@light

Ofcom has not published the name.

I know it, but I don't know enough about the site to know whether publishing the name is wise or not. I know that some people see it as a positive site, not a negative one.

The identity is not a secret, and a bit of searching will turn it up.

Light

@light@noc.social replied · 5 days ago

@neil
What do I search for?

Neil Brown

@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk replied · 5 days ago

@light I'm sorry, I don't feel comfortable giving that information.

Simon Zerafa

@simonzerafa@infosec.exchange replied · 5 days ago

@neil

business disruption measures is a load bearing phrase in that statement.

So blocking payment processing or banking facilities and / or technical access restrictions? 🤨🤷‍♂️

Neil Brown

@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk replied · 5 days ago

@simonzerafa And possibly ISP-level blocking.

Simon Zerafa

@simonzerafa@infosec.exchange replied · 5 days ago

@neil

Which only covers the big 5 UK ISP's, last time I checked? 🤔

Neil Brown

@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk replied · 5 days ago

@simonzerafa

It depends what you are looking at.

Site-blocking injunctions has been limited, in terms of the ISPs to which they apply.

Sanctions-related obligations apply to all ISPs, irrespective of size.

Federation Bot

@Federation_Bot replied · 5 days ago

@neil @simonzerafa "applies to all ISP" which means what? I'm not obliged to use my ISPs DNS server. Or any "safe site" filtering they might offer.

Paul

@pwaring@social.xk7.net replied · 5 days ago

@falken @neil @simonzerafa If I'm understanding the business disruption measures correctly, your ISP could be ordered to block all traffic to the relevant IP addresses, regardless of whether you use their DNS or filters (effectively it would be a mandatory filter). And if you're using a UK based VPN the same applies.

1+ more replies (not shown)

Neil Brown

@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk replied · 5 days ago

@falken @simonzerafa

Correct. Nor would it impact people using VPNs.

But - to date - not everyone runs their own recursive DNS, uses a VPN service, or uses third party DNS.

In time, perhaps that will change.

That "el" person on IRC

@el_on_libera@fosstodon.org replied · 5 days ago

@neil Given we all know how vague Ofcom likes to be, I'm neither surprised nor comforted by the wording they've used here. It's a little too coy for comfort, even though I'm fairly sure of the context and the intentions of the affected forum. Transparency desperately needs more descriptors than the word "harms" in the current political climate.

Neil Brown

@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk replied · 5 days ago

@el_on_libera I agree - I hope that future documents, setting out the details of the alleged non-compliance, will be more explicit.

NAB 🇬🇧🇪🇺🔶:marmite:

@NAB@mastodon.me.uk replied · 5 days ago

@neil Foreign site which has implemented geo-blocking. Instructions on how to circumvent the block were posted, but have been removed. A 'mirror site' (no mention of who this was controlled by) permitted access for some time but not any more. No explanation of why the action has now stepped up a gear. Sounds more like Ofcom are testing the limits of their powers. Interesting.

Neil Brown

@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk replied · 5 days ago

@NAB

> No explanation of why the action has now stepped up a gear

None yet, no - I'd expect to see this in the published documentation in the coming days.

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances

Bonfire social · 1.0.1-beta.23 no JS en

Automatic federation enabled