Online Safety Bill - Thoughts?

[Chippy_boy]

Governments absolutely abuse their powers. Just pointing out this act isn’t introducing the powers you think it is.

Ok if you say so. Forgive me for being skeptical that it may be used against people at some point in the future.

 

[BlueHammer85]

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 ect

the more obstacles the better though ? Even if it reduced the amount of children accessing harmful content by 20-30% that could still save a lot of lives...
There is very few children that can access gambling sites and place bets because of how hard the restrictions are and the bank checks ect. I am sure social media sites and other websites can do the same. Seems weird to me how many just say 'it won't work lets not bother doing anything'.
Why don't we just allow Pubs and bars to serve children alcohol ? they can access alcohol if they really wanted to anyway so we may aswell right...

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

(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.

It’s the classic ‘politicians syllogism’ or political fallacy, if you like. It goes:
“Something MUST be done,” “This is something, so we’ll do that.” It’s almost always the wrong thing but they never get that far in their thinking.

Sadly, it’s also something almost all politicians (especially ministers) suffer from, much to the country’s detriment.

 

[xmusampa]

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.

Can you imagine banning 16from smartphones there would be an even bigger spike in suicides.

 

[xmusampa]

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.

It may play a part but don’t think it’s just access to dodgy internet that’s causing spike in suicides

 

[meltonblue]

Ok if you say so. Forgive me for being skeptical that it may be used against people at some point in the future.

It will be - if they do something illegal online :)

 

[frothy]

the more obstacles the better though ? Even if it reduced the amount of children accessing harmful content by 20-30% that could still save a lot of lives...
There is very few children that can access gambling sites and place bets because of how hard the restrictions are and the bank checks ect. I am sure social media sites and other websites can do the same. Seems weird to me how many just say 'it won't work lets not bother doing anything'.
Why don't we just allow Pubs and bars to serve children alcohol ? they can access alcohol if they really wanted to anyway so we may aswell right...

They can vote now when they are 16, and there are many more over 18s that commit sex crimes and other crimes after using the Internet, parents need to take more responsibility for their childrens online activities

 

[meltonblue]

They can vote now when they are 16, and there are many more over 18s that commit sex crimes and other crimes after using the Internet, parents need to take more responsibility for their childrens online activities

I’d argue parents asking for social media sites to be regulated is taking responsibility for their children’s online activities though.

It shouldn’t be different to any other media or aged based restrictive accesses we have, if anything it should be far more restrictive than anything else.

 

[BlueHammer85]

They can vote now when they are 16, and there are many more over 18s that commit sex crimes and other crimes after using the Internet, parents need to take more responsibility for their childrens online activities

Absolutely, but we know many parents don't and can't monitor everything 24/7.
Some parents are scum and don't care and some single Mums are more worried about how they're going to keep a roof over the heads of their children and a million other different examples - Its really not a big ask for tech companies and the government to put stricter controls on porn and other harmful sites for children.

 

[crooky]

I think the idea is good in principle and making it difficult for younger users to see and read things they really shouldn't be seeing is a good step forward.

I'm slightly concerned on the overreach of the new law though. With some things seemingly being unnecessarily blocked now. (Highlighted on post #13) It would've been good to have some discourse around this and some iron clad promises set in law to guarantee that certain subjects or topics can not be added to the current list going forward.

It's basically a tale of two halves. Good for protecting children but bad for general freedom.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

I have probably been more patient with Labour than most - I want to give them a fair chance, they’ve had a year and the Tories had 14. A lot of their policies I understand the underlying logic (not all of them), but often I think they’re trying to keep everybody happy and therefore pleasing nobody.

But I think this OSA is a huge misstep and the type of thing where we won’t recognise the consequences until it’s already too late.

I’m not some free speech libertarian-type, and I think social media companies have a duty to moderate their content and safeguard children much better than they are doing today. I have no problem with them being held to account… but this is not it.

This Act is the perfect example of well-intentioned but terribly executed by a bunch of MPs who are simply technically illiterate.

Firstly, I’ll ignore the argument that determined teens will just get a VPN and so this whole thing is totally impotent at achieving the goals it sets out to achieve.

We’re going to see a spike in malware, as people look for free VPNs and they inadvertently download malicious ones which harvest their identity. We’re going to see tonnes of UK Citizens willingly handing over their government ID to dodgy websites, many based in the US, that either have bad intentions or terrible cybersecurity. Not just porn sites - the legislation is way broader than that.

Those databases are going to get hacked, like they always do, and while no doubt it will be fun to some if we see another Ashley Madison situation, it’s not as fun if the site is actually… say… a forum for alcoholics or addicts.

And if you think “that’s not what the legislation says”, many subreddits and other social media groups are already now age-gated. Again, these aren’t porn sites. These are communities for LGBT people, support groups for people struggling with mental health. Now you’ve just placed an extra barrier in front of people who need help because they have to identify themselves.

And if people (including kids) don’t want to identify themselves this will also end up driving people to more underground websites that don’t have any care for regulations. That’s like lesson 101 on how you expose more people to illicit content - make the non-illicit stuff harder to access. The rise and fall of Pirate Bay is proof of that.

I know a lot will disagree with me but I just can’t see how the pros outweigh the above cons. Of course children need to be safeguarded but there’s much more effective ways to do that which don’t come with all the above negatives. Legally enforce parental controls on devices. Place more accountability on the large platforms to moderate their own content. This is not the way.

 

[frothy]

Absolutely, but we know many parents don't and can't monitor everything 24/7.
Some parents are scum and don't care and some single Mums are more worried about how they're going to keep a roof over the heads of their children and a million other different examples - Its really not a big ask for tech companies and the government to put stricter controls on porn and other harmful sites for children.

But they can buy them iPhones and Netflix ect

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Not sure what the problem is with this, does it stop people from watching extreme content or does it just stop children up to a certain age from watching it?

 

[meltonblue]

Absolutely, but we know many parents don't and can't monitor everything 24/7.
Some parents are scum and don't care and some single Mums are more worried about how they're going to keep a roof over the heads of their children and a million other different examples - Its really not a big ask for tech companies and the government to put stricter controls on porn and other harmful sites for children.

It’s not even that,

I think the idea is good in principle and making it difficult for younger users to see and read things they really shouldn't be seeing is a good step forward.

I'm slightly concerned on the overreach of the new law though. With some things seemingly being unnecessarily blocked now. (Highlighted on post #13) It would've been good to have some discourse around this and some iron clad promises set in law to guarantee that certain subjects or topics can not be added to the current list going forward.

It's basically a tale of two halves. Good for protecting children but bad for general freedom.

That post has misinterpreted the bill.

It’s not without its flaws but the post you’re referring to is unknowingly (i don’t think misleadingly, but plenty of others online are) criticising the bill because it’s not allowing illegal content that assists illegal migration or to allow illegal content around race or religious offences.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

They can vote now when they are 16, and there are many more over 18s that commit sex crimes and other crimes after using the Internet, parents need to take more responsibility for their childrens online activities

How like you propose that a parent does that?

 

[frothy]

How like you propose that a parent does that?

Put controls on their phones and tablets, they will be or should be under a password their parents have set, it's not fucking rocket science

 

[crooky]

It’s not even that,


That post has misinterpreted the bill.

It’s not without its flaws but the post you’re referring to is unknowingly (i don’t think misleadingly, but plenty of others online are) criticising the bill because it’s not allowing illegal content that assists illegal migration or to allow illegal content around race or religious offences.

Thanks.

I'll read the bill or at least a summary from a reputable site to clarify. It would make sense what you're saying as some of those things are protected characteristics

 

[BridgyDids]

Put controls on their phones and tablets, they will be or should be under a password their parents have set, it's not fucking rocket science

Can I ask what controls these are? Is it for apps? To unlock the Home Screen? App Store?

 

[meltonblue]

Thanks.

I'll read the bill or at least a summary from a reputable site to clarify. It would make sense what you're saying as some of those things are protected characteristics

For the race one in particularly, yes. Illegal immigration, it was about the assistance of it that’s the main illegal content. The House of Lords reading of it is the most clear and easily accessible.

 

[meltonblue]

Put controls on their phones and tablets, they will be or should be under a password their parents have set, it's not fucking rocket science

Do you want to see similar deregulation across the board?