I can see another little conundrum here about "Moderators"! If a problem arises because a moderator didn't do their part correctly, who is still responsible, the moderator or website owner? As you say Mikel: Being a "Moderator" of forums, topics or other such like sections is a difficult job, In a way the "moderator" has to be both judge and juror. A difficult position to be in. This could potentially put people off being a moderator for you, but I do like your idea about "Marshalls"! Mark

Hei Mark.

Feel free to use my "marshalls" idea.
Ofcom asked me about my team set up, security, policies and TOCs. When i told ofcom about it, they were impressed at the Marshalls idea and commended me for it. It shows foresight and a willingness to create a better and safer site.

Marshalls is not a security team, Not that type of marshal like a sheriff or marshal. Although the marshalls are my undercover eyes and ears who report to each other in a secret group, and my security team directly.

Marshall as in: some who can guide or encourage other members, report things that other members might not think about reporting. Promote anti-scam posts or other fun stuff. report abuse that usually goes un reported. Do all this anonymously. No other members know of the Marshalls so the marshalls can get into groups or topics and friendships that security or admin and moderators cant. This way abusers or criminals or rule breakers dont know they are talking to a Marshall.




To answer your question : Who is ultimately responsible ?
This is a simple question.


As the site owner or owners who own the site, Legally it is the site owner or owners who are ultimately responsible (legally)

Dont think for a minute that just because an issue was missed or not acted upon fast enough that you are going to prison or get a huge fine. Chances are that will never happen.
If that was the case, then zuckerburg would be in prison doing life sentence and pennyless.

So if you the owner can show that you have staff ,skills and systems in place and can do the job, you will be ok. The important bit is NOT to overthink the negative view of law. But see the positive and use to your best advantage and be pro-active and create your own systems and checks.



Why ?
It is the responsibility of the Owner to ensure that all staff (volunteer or paid ) have a level of training to ensure that they understand the role of Moderator / admin / security or other position.
Also that the moderator has a good and balanced view of common sense and decency also understand the spoken language.

Now im not just talking about say, french or german, but understanding the flow and tone of language and of conversation. We all have that inbuilt sense of weather someone is being nice or rude, hatefull or sarcastic. We learn this as we grow up and interact with others.

As moderators we combine our learned life skills for the most part plus our classroom taught skills. This is what makes a great moderator / admin / security.

When we combine all these skills we create an efective moderator team and system. Remember all systems are flawed to some degree so regular training and practicing is encouraged.

Examples of training.
1, paying to do a course.
2, social training where you go into the public and people watch. see how people are interacting and make notes. Basically psychology both verbal and physical interactions.
this way you will start to pick up on the little things that many people block out, but its good to observe.
3, use local people from various communities.
Example: if i had members from New York / liverpool and some from Louisiana / london, the dialect and use of words will / can be different almost like a foreign language.
So the use of local people to the local members will help in understanding language.



Mikel.

Great reply Mikel, my website is still in its infancy but I like the way you wrote this as I'm not the most intellectual person when it comes to law and order (great tv program by the way!) and legal stuff, but I do know a bit about psychology.

I shall make sure I keep up with this thread continually as although some of it is a bit deep for me, there lots that make sense to me, and marshals are something to definitely think about for the future.

And I've just received your oFcom pdf so will read that too.

Thank you Mikel,

Kind regards,

Mark

Hei mark Nothing wrong in not being intellectual. Im not intellectual. Far from it. To be honest, im the most changeable person i know. Im also monochromic (colourblind), somewhat dyslexic (thank mocrosoft for spell check) so i usually think outside the box or if that dont work, i redesign the box. Much the annoyance of my team and my security chief. Been many times ive ran and hidden from her because ive changed something or thought about doing something. Im more practical than intellectual, so embrace yourself for who you are. Example of people who are oddballs but successes. Steve Jobs, Richard Branson(dyslexic), Allen Sugar(dyslexic), Me (colourblind sort of dislexic), You, Web Diva, Albert Einstein (prislaxia, couldnt do basic maths and failed maths at school) Elon Musk (anxiety and compulsive personality) So yeah, Embrace yoursel. mikel.

I didn't want to disrupt the conversation flow (you all- awesome by the way) but have to add it was nice to be included in the "oddball" category along with Albert Einstein et al.

Hi Mikel,

I have read the oFcom pdf you sent me, wow, a lot to take in, but at first reading it I think I fall into the category ODPS not VSP. I come to this conclusion by following the flow chart, easier to understand. And the part:

"Is providing videos to members of the public the ‘principal purpose’ of the service or a ‘dissociable section’ of the service?"

Providing videos is not the ‘principal purpose’ of the service!

But, I will read it again after some of it has sunk in a bit!

Thanks.


Kind regards,

Mark

Supreme Court hearing this week on Gonzalez vs. Google.

See on Tech's Realm for updates on the challenges to Section 230 in this years Supreme Court dockets.


The Supreme Court faces the challenge of trying to manage the
unmanageable on Tuesday when it hears a case that could drastically
change the functioning of social media platforms. The case is Gonzalez v. Google and it deals with whether tech platforms can be legally liable for content posted, even from third parties.




For more detailed discussion/links on the US Section 230 you may read at the below link:

https://techsrealm.com/groups/topic/view/group_id/2/topic_id/20/post_id/71 />
Sign up to join in the discussion:

https://techsrealm.com/signup

SCOTUS fears excessive lawsuits for Tech Firms. This is a February article, but I though important to the discussion. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-21/supreme-court-appears-wary-of-section-230-rules-rollback?leadSource=uverify%20wall A day after the US Supreme Court grappled with a high-stakes clash that could roll back liability protections for internet companies, the justices will hear a related case that may provide a way to sidestep the thorny issue. The Wednesday argument tests whether social media companies can be sued under a federal anti-terrorism law for not doing enough to remove Islamic State videos. If the answer is no, the justices might not need to resolve broader questions about Section 230, the provision that has given companies sweeping protection from lawsuits since 1996.

The Supreme Court expressed wariness about opening internet companies to lawsuits stemming from harmful user posts during nearly three hours of oral arguments on a separate but related case, Gonzalez v. Google, on Tuesday.

Justices puzzled as Supreme Court hears arguments over internet liability shield. This article is from February, but thought it was worth bringing into this discussion if only for future reference.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3868144-justices-puzzled-as-supreme-court-hears-arguments-over-internet-liability-shield/ />



The Supreme Court grappled with the scope of a liability shield for internet companies on Tuesday, at times expressing confusion about arguments to narrow the industry’s protections as they probed how it could impact the internet.

Their skepticism came during oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, a case brought by the family of U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed during an 2015 ISIS attack in Paris, for YouTube’s purported recommendations of pro-ISIS videos.

A number of the justices appeared frustrated at the arguments of Eric Schnapper, the attorney representing the Gonzalez family who argued Google should not be protected by Section 230.

Interesting reading the article!