Good for you mate. I'm not a parent but would do the same were I to have kids.
You are very gullible aren't you? That's why we have these tossers in chargeOh give over, this isn’t suppression against media to not report about Migrants and riots you desperately seek - it will still be the rage on GB News and co all over the internet.
This is predominantly to do with harmful shit like suicide techniques, violent content and extreme porn that is being fed to our kids.
You are very gullible aren't you? That's why we have these tossers in charge
Doubt it. Farage will say anything that gets the most votes these days. When he realises his proposal is a vote loser, he'll drop it like a hot potato.It's ok, i predict Reform will be in charge in a few years - he can repel all the online safety legislation and kids can go back to watching violence, porn etc whilst the suicide rate in children goes sky high again.
so it could have happened? Does this not compromise the process despite the assurances?
What a rude comment. You could be the best parent in the world and still not shield your child from social media, unless you want to rob them of the independence they will eventually crave.Instead of banning all social media for kids, have you tried actively parenting them Instead?
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.
I think it is unlikely. The age verification system will be coded into the website you are trying to access, but remain the property of the age verification company and the information on the age verification system is not shared with the website owners. The website owner has no interest in who you are, only that you can access their website.
It’s like third party billing. A company such as CCBill handles the payment and access to the adult content locked behind a website’s paywall. CCBill would be given access to the adult website and install the paywall, the payment process and access. If someone pays the monthly fee the card transaction/payment details and access is handled entirely by CCBill. The adult website owner will receive a record of the transaction but no payment or financial details, other than your name, address and IP.
I would stress that this is my opinion of how age verification with facial ID or card info will likely work and anyone uncomfortable with it should avoid it. Or pay for a reliable VPN :)
I think we need to get past the government somehow suppressing or controlling anything because the government really isn't that clever and they certainly aren't successful at achieving it.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.
Er, Rotherham??? FFS they've systematically covered that up for decades.I think we need to get past the government somehow suppressing or controlling anything because the government really isn't that clever and they certainly aren't successful at achieving it.
When I started this thread I was unaware Farage had said anything. I just heard about the new restrictions on the news this morning and I thought I’d seek opinions on here.
I started out thinking what’s the point since it won’t work, and at the same time could be problematic. But having read up a bit and also thought about it, my views have changed.
I’ve always accepted that *something* must be done, and IMO clearly this isn’t it. But on balance it’s better than nothing and maybe will prevent some kids from seeing damaging material so probably best we keep it until something better comes along.
HOWEVER. I have a MAJOR problem with what the government has classified as illegal material.
When the government says, “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:”
…
This has no place in this legislation. At first I was thinking this is not a big deal, but on reflection it really is. We cannot have a situation where news agencies may be prevented from reporting about immigration issues or e.g. angry mobs outside migrant hotels.
- racially or religiously aggravated public order offences
- illegal immigration and people smuggling
I am seriously wondering if the government has sneaked this in, specifically to suppress such news.
I haven't read the act. I just quoted directly off the government's own website which seeks to explain the act. Perhaps they worded it badly (I accept that may be the case) but it explicitly says this:I’m not sure you’ve read the act to be fair as that is absolutely not what would be considered as illegal content. Illegal immigration is about the assistance of it, as that’s what would make it illegal content in the first place.
News agencies can report on anything they want as they can already - I.e. as long as it’s in a legal way.
You put your details on a dodgy site that’s your problem I’m afraid. I totally agree that something needs to be done about kids and what they see online and this is a step in the right direction.
Any grown adults get scammed, that’s on them.
Parents can put restrictions on their childrens devices but they can get round it. Just like they will with this, it's s not going to stop them going on Facebook ectIt's ok, i predict Reform will be in charge in a few years - he can repel all the online safety legislation and kids can go back to watching violence, porn etc whilst the suicide rate in children goes sky high again.
I haven't read the act. I just quoted directly off the government's own website which seeks to explain the act. Perhaps they worded it badly (I accept that may be the case) but it explicitly says this:
"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:
...
racially or religiously aggravated public order offences
...
illegal immigration and people smuggling"
These are the governments own words on their own website. I imagine buried in the lengthy and complex legislation will be some words about protecting journalistic freedom, but it could become a grey area. Whilst inciting violence is clearly out, what about reporting on a load of people inciting violence? Or a gang outside a migrant hotel chanting "Send Them Home Now". I can envisage a future government leaning on a media agency, saying if you broadcast that we will prosecute you under the online safety act.
Maybe I am being paranoid but honestly after the travesty of the rape gangs, and sending people to jail for tweets or for peacefully protesting - which HAS happened - I don't trust any of the bastards as far as I could throw them.
Your confidence in governments not abusing their powers is much greater than mine. I used to think we lived in a free democratic country where the state is on the side of the normal working people. I no longer believe so.But even the section you quote specifically says as it’s beginning words any illegal content related to it. Criticising illegal immigration or a news company reporting on an angry mob isn’t illegal.
Illegal content for illegal immigration is assisting it.
Sending people to jail for tweets saying what they did wasn’t new either.
Your confidence in governments not abusing their powers is much greater than mine. I used to think we lived in a free democratic country where the state is on the side of the normal working people. I no longer believe so.
There's several counts of people being held at the airport under the Prevention of Terrorism Act - a terrible, sweeping piece of legislation giving the state untold power (like if you choose to remain silent you are arrested) - and for what? Hosting an anti-government YouTube channel.