Online Safety Bill - Thoughts?

C C

Chippy_boy

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 Aug 2008
Messages
32,172
Location
Downstairs
Team supported
God's chosen team
(There's already a few posts on this in the Technical forum but few will see it there so hope the mods don't mind a repeat here.)

What are people's views on this? I have to say I am very mixed about it.

On the one hand, protecting our kids is of course a good thing to do. No-one could disagree with that.

But on the other hand, I can't see how the current bill will make any difference in that any kid wanting to access porn will be able to do so trivially easily. It won't block anything.

And then there's some ENORMOUS downsides. If handing e.g. your credit card or even passport details over to some shady characters operating dodgy porn sites, doesn't strike you as "risky" then I don't know what to say. You'd be bonkers to do that and not just circumvent the rules like the kids will. But some will doubtless do it and also doubtless, fraud will increase.

Then you have the risk to impacting free speech and government censorship of things it doesn't want you to see. Unfortunately we cannot only ask kids to verify their age, we have to ask everyone to do so. And sites not seeking age verification may feel unable to post some (non-pornographic) content in case it transgresses the new law.

So overall, and somewhat reluctantly, I think I'd have to lean on the side of getting rid of it. I don't think it will protect kids and it will do harm.
 
Christ, are you sure you're not an actual bot or something ?!
You vaguely 'just about' disagree with every single thing Labour does. shock.
It's mainly age checks - to stop children seeing illegal and harmful material especially with the increase in suicide rates from children, it's a long over waited start - it should actually go a lot further and I'd personally ban all social media for kids with the amount of violent, harmful and misinformation being spread - it's nothing to do with denying free speech as the right wing will try to play.
Its much needed. well done Labour.
 
Last edited:
BlueHammer85 said:
Christ, are you sure you're not an actual bot or something ?!
You vaguely 'just about' disagree with every single thing Labour does. shock.
It's mainly age checks - to stop children seeing illegal and harmful material especially with the increase in suicide rates from children, it's a long over waited start - it should actually go a lot further and I'd personally ban all social media for kids with the amount of violent, harmful and misinformation being spread - it's nothing to do with denying free speech as the right wing will try to play.
Its much needed. well done Labour.
Click to expand...
The Tories instigated it. So this is not about me criticising Labour. And neither can they claim credit for it.*

What about it not actually working, or the increased fraud risk. Do either of those concern you at all? They do me.

You criticise me for criticising Labour when on the other hand you're like a bloody spokesman for them. Are you incapable of non-partisan discussion? Don't bother answering that. Obviously you are.


*The Online Safety Act 2023[1][2][3] (c. 50) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to regulate online content. It passed on 26 October 2023.
 
Chippy_boy said:
The Tories instigated it. So this is not about me criticising Labour. And neither can they claim credit for it.

What about it not actually working, or the increased fraud risk. Do either of those concern you at all? They do me.
Click to expand...

What i am seeing on social media terrifies me for what my children will be seeing when they get to 11/12 years old with the way it is at the moment, luckily they're only 2 and 5 now and i feel more and more safety legislation will be bought in. Australia have started to lead the way.

Increased fraud risk, no - assume safeguards will be bought in place to ensure that doesn't happen and that's least down on my worries to what the harm its currently doing right now for children.
 
The nature of the internet means that any content can pretty much be viewed by anyone, that's how it's designed and the companies that own the sites are not legally responsible for pages viewed on or via their sites. It's the nature of the beast. There's been a huge upsurge in VPN usage in the UK brought on by this bill, quelle surprise. Social media companies are driven by clicks and couldn't care less about anything else. The internet started out as a great resource for the world but as soon as the advertisers and money people figured out how to make money from it it was doomed to become the cess pit it's turned into.
 
Kyle claimed to Wilfred Frost on Sky News Breakfast that Farage's opposition to the Online Safety Act meant he was "on the side" of "extreme pornographers" who target children online.

He accused Farage of wanting to "turn the clock right back" on the law that aims to protect children online, after the Reform leader vowed to act over free speech concerns.

"I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he's going to overturn these laws," he said.

"So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side.

"Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side."
 
BlueHammer85 said:
What i am seeing on social media terrifies me for what my children will be seeing when they get to 11/12 years old with the way it is at the moment, luckily they're only 2 and 5 now and i feel more and more safety legislation will be bought in. Australia have started to lead the way.

Increased fraud risk, no - assume safeguards will be bought in place to ensure that doesn't happen and that's least down on my worries to what the harm its currently doing right now for children.
Click to expand...
I agree with your first paragraph, in the main (I don't know anything about what Australia is doing.)

But I think we'd struggle to safeguard agains the fraud risk. Dodgy sites (as well as some legit ones) will surely ask for credit card details or passport details and some people will surely enter them (not least those who want to pay for content). This is inevitably going to increase the amount of fraud, given that many sites are operated by shady characters or worse.

And this still doesn't address the "yes but it doesn't actually work" issue.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Kyle claimed to Wilfred Frost on Sky News Breakfast that Farage's opposition to the Online Safety Act meant he was "on the side" of "extreme pornographers" who target children online.

He accused Farage of wanting to "turn the clock right back" on the law that aims to protect children online, after the Reform leader vowed to act over free speech concerns.

"I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he's going to overturn these laws," he said.

"So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side.

"Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side."
Click to expand...
Yes I saw that. Fucking outrageous comments. I mean seriously, suggesting Farage is in some way on the side of such people, is a totally outrageous comment. I would not be surprised if Farage decides to sue him. If I had Farage's money and someone made comments like that about me, I would.
 
Chippy_boy said:
We do have slander laws in the UK you know. Free speech or no free speech.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying I agree with the comments about Farage but he's the last person who should be complaining. After all, he's forever making slanderous comments so he can't complain too much when someone does it to him. Fuck him the frog-faced ****!
 
M18CTID said:
I'm not saying I agree with the comments about Farage but he's the last person who should be complaining. After all, he's forever making slanderous comments so he can't complain too much when someone does it to him. Fuck him the frog-faced ****!
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
I don't know if people have taken the time to read up on the Bill / Act. No-one I am sure is against trying to protect our kids, or even adults and our society more generally. But it does get complicated. I was interested to read this about "illegal content". Much of it is self-explanatory and beyond debate. But not all.

From the government:
"The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:

child sexual abuse
controlling or coercive behaviour
extreme sexual violence
extreme pornography
fraud
racially or religiously aggravated public order offences
inciting violence
illegal immigration and people smuggling
promoting or facilitating suicide
intimate image abuse
selling illegal drugs or weapons
sexual exploitation
terrorism

I mean seriously, those highted could easily mean a site like Youtube feels it cannot show the copper kicking the Manchester Airport assailant in the head. Or pictures of illegal immigrants arriving on boats.

It's not a trivial issue this. It raises a question whether it is open to abuse by the government. (NOT making a party-political point here. By ANY government.)
 
Chippy_boy said:
I don't know if people have taken the time to read up on the Bill / Act. No-one I am sure is against trying to protect our kids, or even adults and our society more generally. But it does get complicated. I was interested to read this about "illegal content". Much of it is self-explanatory and beyond debate. But not all.

From the government:
"The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to:

child sexual abuse
controlling or coercive behaviour
extreme sexual violence
extreme pornography
fraud
racially or religiously aggravated public order offences
inciting violence
illegal immigration and people smuggling
promoting or facilitating suicide
intimate image abuse
selling illegal drugs or weapons
sexual exploitation
terrorism

I mean seriously, those highted could easily mean a site like Youtube feels it cannot show the copper kicking the Manchester Airport assailant in the head. Or pictures of illegal immigrants arriving on boats.

It's not a trivial issue this. It raises a question whether it is open to abuse by the government. (NOT making a party-political point here. By ANY government.)
Click to expand...

How afwul not to be shown police getting beaten up and migrants on boats - that's what i really love going on Youtube for after seeing it on the News 24/7.

Again, least of worries if that means kids can be more protected from online harm.

studyfinds.org

Kids Who Get Smartphones Before 13 Face Skyrocketing Suicide Risk, Study Warns

Getting a smartphone before age 13 may dramatically raise risks of suicidal thoughts and mental health struggles later, new global study finds.
studyfinds.org studyfinds.org
 
It’s a total unregulated minefield.
The internet and social media is like the Wild West. Total respect for the Aussie government in trying to address it but it feels like they’re up against it.

Hopefully some smarter minds than mine can figure out a way to get the kids off these platforms. It’s too late for the current generation of kids but I do hope for the future.

The only way I can think of is to ban smartphones from U16 but that will never happen.

Or research a mid point for teens and younger to have semi smart phones that are highly regulated and restricted

For reference
www.theguardian.com

As Australia’s teen social media ban looms, here’s how the platforms are lobbying for an exemption

Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snapchat are running ads and events saying their services are safe for children – with the possibility of a legal challenge
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
BlueHammer85 said:
How afwul not to be shown police getting beaten up and migrants on boats - that's what i really love going on Youtube for after seeing it on the News 24/7.

Again, least of worries if that means kids can be more protected from online harm.

studyfinds.org

Kids Who Get Smartphones Before 13 Face Skyrocketing Suicide Risk, Study Warns

Getting a smartphone before age 13 may dramatically raise risks of suicidal thoughts and mental health struggles later, new global study finds.
studyfinds.org studyfinds.org
Click to expand...
You're triviliasing a non-trivial issue.

It could be open to a government to suppress information for political purposes. And you're still overlooking the point that as it stands, no kid is prevented from accessing anything. I won't post here what to do, but if 1 kid in the school knows how to circumvent the restrictions, they all do.

As I have said, I have mixed about it because I do agree that something needs to be done. I am just not sure what can be done. And I would certainly take a long hard look at what is/is not deemed illegal. The two things I highlighted above should be nowhere near this legislation IMO.
 
Last edited:
Feed the Elk said:
The only way I can think of is to ban smartphones from U16 but that will never happen.
Click to expand...
I'd actually be supportive of that. FWIW I'd also try to block all access to the TOR network. The weak justifications for privacy where that is concerns, are FAR outweighed by the abhorrent content, hacking kits etc.
 
Chippy_boy said:
You're triviliasing a non-trivial issue, and still not addressing the point that as it stands, no kid is prevented from accessing anything. I won't post here what to do, but if 1 kid in the school knows how to circumvent the restrictions, they all do.
Click to expand...

It's very tough for a child to access a gambling website and place a bet, very tough unless they are literally stealing the ID and details of someone older and even then the person would find out.
I don't see why social media sites cant have similar controls.
You sound like throwing in the towel before even giving goverments a chance to do something, its the wrong attitude.
 
Chippy_boy said:
You're triviliasing a non-trivial issue.

It could be open to a government to suppress information for political purposes. And you're still overlooking the point that as it stands, no kid is prevented from accessing anything. I won't post here what to do, but if 1 kid in the school knows how to circumvent the restrictions, they all do.

As I have said, I have mixed about it because I do agree that something needs to be done. I am just not sure what can be done. And I would certainly take a long hard look at what is/is not deemed illegal. The two things I highlighted above should be nowhere near this legislation IMO.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest that kids who are younger (say up to around 13), increasingly have unrestricted access to the internet/tiktok etc., but they are much less likely to have enough control over devices to download apps. While that doesn't cut off all routes, it's still a barrier for many.

The overall act is clearly far from foolproof, but it's still a fence between kids and content we know they shouldn't be seeing. Some kids will climb the fence, others will see it and decide not to. What won't happen, which does now, is the kids who don't want to be on the other side of the fence (e.g. with self-harm content), end up being led there by an uncaring algorithm.

The interview this morning from Peter Kyle was pretty controversial, but one thing he did say was that it's not expected to stop 100% of kids- but even if it stops 60% that's a huge win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top