admin has posted their assessment at
viewtopic.php?p=1889514#p1889514 and I've spotted a familiar name pop up during discussions elsewhere.
I agree with most of the answers and some of the risk assessments, but it looks partially incorrect in its answer to question 5 (profiles include location information) and the Step 2 assessments seems to ignore that the Private Message system could be used for various things. I don't think the moderators currently check any PMs if no-one involved in the chat clicks Report, do they? One would expect that the plotters of a terrorist attack are unlikely to Report their conspiratorial discussions...
"Firearms, knives and other weapons" cites as evidence that there's been "18 years of use without such content being posted, as far as moderators have noticed" whereas I remember plenty of discussion of knives over the years (not always for food!), several about how to get them past security checks and at least one moderator involved! Even if they've never been sold openly on the site, discussing how to avoid border security still touches one of the priority offences in the guidance, as well as the encouraging and aiding offences, doesn't it? There's also been some discussion of carrying guns on tour, not all of which has been deleted. I don't think the risk of further such material being posted is negligible in discussions of cycle touring, often solo.
And for animal cruelty, isn't
the famous advice from Ballantine's bike book a problem? In the words of Ofcom, "where a user publishes content showing, describing or discussing cruelty to animals in order to encourage, assist or conspire to commit acts of animal cruelty, this would create priority illegal content under the Act. This is because encouragement, assistance and conspiracy to commit a priority offence are each priority offences in their own right." (from
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/res ... -risks.pdf ) We could argue that it's sometimes justified as self-defence, but it is also pretty cruel and the instructions definitely assist, so this type of content has also definitely been posted (and possibly more than just the copy I linked), contrary to the risk assessment "evidence".
This does make me wonder how good the records of content removed by the moderators is, as well as that reported but left visible.
The code measures are described as "Implemented" but the "Reports" section of
viewtopic.php?t=3661 doesn't appear to have been updated to cover how non-registered users may report illegal content, nor have the Terms linked from every page been updated yet.
