Online Safety Bill - Thoughts?

[Chippy_boy]

I have not read the bill. It seems to me that the risk of legislating like this is the question: who decides which sites need age checks?
We have seen recently the case of a protest group being banned as terrorists where the gov made secondary decisions.
I remember Tony Blair talking about the 2000 bill saying s44 would only be used in extreme cases, but the gov doesn’t decide how legislation is used by authorities like the police. In fact, the repressive way s44 was used caused it to be abolished in the end.
So, as well as self censorship risks, we need to keep an eye, not on porn sites, but on the other ‘harmful’ categories covered to guard against mission creep.
PS I have just read post #226 above. It seems mission creep has already started.

Agree completely. The issue isn't just what the act covers, it's what people worry that it might cover, and then choose not to comment or publish.

Some sites may put material behind age-restrictions, others might just not cover a story for fear of it transgressing the law... to be on the safe side.

And that's just the innocent unforseen consequences. I think it also opens up the more sinister possibility of the government willfully abusing it by coercing media companies if they continue to carry stories about x,y or z. We've seen that happening already:

"Officials, part of a secretive government unit called the National Security and Online Information Team (NSOIT), formerly known as the Counter Disinformation Unit, have raised concerns with social media giants like TikTok. They warned that certain videos with "concerning narratives" were exacerbating tensions during events such as the Southport riots."

 

[stonerblue]

What is it they say about sarcasm being so convincing people think you're serious? I've noticed that about Blue moon.

For me this is just another pointless Act that won't actually do anything like it's intended, yet Labour will dust their hands, call it job done, whilst avoiding the actual issues itself. I worry about how it will be exploited, making 'verification checks' the norm and how it will play into the hands of scammers and hackers.

Ha. like u were being 'sarcastic'...

 

[Chippy_boy]

Latest news I'm hearing is that US law firms are preparing lawsuits against OFCOM. Some of the letters they've been sending out to various sites, requiring compliance with the Online Safety Act, allegedly breach US laws with maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Oops.

 

[Don Karleone]

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I’m still yet to learn why this is infringing on people’s rights, and what they cannot do that they could do before?

 

[Chippy_boy]

I’m still yet to learn why this is infringing on people’s rights, and what they cannot do that they could do before?

And so it begins. Don't say I didnt warn you....

"Social media companies are blocking wide-ranging content - including posts about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza - in an attempt to comply with the UK's new Online Safety Act, BBC Verify has found."

.."BBC Verify found a range of public interest content, including parliamentary debates on grooming gangs, has been restricted on X and Reddit for those who have not completed age verification checks."

OK, since you missed it. For a start, how about reading innocuous articles about the war in Ukraine and Gaza.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

OK, since you missed it. For a start, how about reading innocuous articles about the war in Ukraine and Gaza.

These are genuine questions as I’ve been tanked at work and had just spent quality time with family. I have no issue accessing or reading any content, it’s there for all to see, without restriction.

Now, you maybe accessing other things and they may be limited by content. But can’t you not gain access by verifying your age, is there a problem with that?

I’d assume that the verification is there because it’s got content that a younger person shouldn’t see/read, which would have to be explicit seeing as a youngster is allowed to buy a newspaper?

 

[Chippy_boy]

These are genuine questions as I’ve been tanked at work and had just spent quality time with family. I have no issue accessing or reading any content, it’s there for all to see, without restriction.

Now, you maybe accessing other things and they may be limited by content. But can’t you not gain access by verifying your age, is there a problem with that?

I’d assume that the verification is there because it’s got content that a younger person shouldn’t see/read, which would have to be explicit seeing as a youngster is allowed to buy a newspaper?

I think you missed the point. Content is being pulled because people are concerned that publishing it might contravene a law. So it's not a matter of you verifying your age - they aren't publishing stuff that previously they would have done so you can't read it.

You might think this is no big deal, but it's the thin end of the wedge. And BTW, yes, I do have a problem with verifying my age. Having been the victim of online fraud where £40k was stolen from me* by someone calling my bank and impersonating me, I am extremely careful about NOT revealing personal information, and definitely not just to read a news article.

* I got the money back but it was extremely stressful and not something I'd like to go through again.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I think you missed the point. Content is being pulled because people are concerned that publishing it might contravene a law. So it's not a matter of you verifying your age - they aren't publishing stuff that previously they would have done so you can't read it.

You might think this is no big deal, but it's the thin end of the wedge. And BTW, yes, I do have a problem with verifying my age. Having been the victim of online fraud where £40k was stolen from me* by someone calling my bank and impersonating me, I am extremely careful about NOT revealing personal information, and definitely not just to read a news article.

* I got the money back but it was extremely stressful and not something I'd like to go through again.

It’s a very fair point with regard to the lost money and shows how lapse the internet is. I had a friend who got duped, took control of their account and not only cleared it out, but then took out a loan and transferred it out. How the fuck that happens, it’s absolutely disgusting that we don’t have legislation to stop it.

On the former, surely the www should be inline with what other media are legislated by? I’d ask what that ‘content’ is being pulled for, wasn’t it always thus, that if it contravened law, it was basically contrary to fact?

Is this where the issue is, that we want to see alternative opinion, even if it is in the extremis, to the detriment of our young, so we can acknowledge or deny the opinion?

And this is what I’m trying to understand. I do not mind giving my basic verification details to confirm that I’m of an age to understand whatever I’m reading/watching, knowing that the young will be stopped from receiving media that can be harmful.

For me, I will sign-up to any portal/channel that I trust, just like here on Bluemoon. I don’t have to hide my location and trust the Team to not release that information. However, if what I want to look at shows up as a little dodgy, why would I want to read/look at that?

 

[Chippy_boy]

It’s a very fair point with regard to the lost money and shows how lapse the internet is. I had a friend who got duped, took control of their account and not only cleared it out, but then took out a loan and transferred it out. How the fuck that happens, it’s absolutely disgusting that we don’t have legislation to stop it.

On the former, surely the www should be inline with what other media are legislated by? I’d ask what that ‘content’ is being pulled for, wasn’t it always thus, that if it contravened law, it was basically contrary to fact?

Is this where the issue is, that we want to see alternative opinion, even if it is in the extremis, to the detriment of our young, so we can acknowledge or deny the opinion?

And this is what I’m trying to understand. I do not mind giving my basic verification details to confirm that I’m of an age to understand whatever I’m reading/watching, knowing that the young will be stopped from receiving media that can be harmful.

For me, I will sign-up to any portal/channel that I trust, just like here on Bluemoon. I don’t have to hide my location and trust the Team to not release that information. However, if what I want to look at shows up as a little dodgy, why would I want to read/look at that?

It's not just a matter of trust though mate. It's about minimizing risk. Do I trust John Lewis? Yes. Do I check "save credit card details" after an online purchase? Absolutely not (and neither should you). Because if they get hacked then potentially hackers have the data you gave to JL when registering including your credit card details.

You should only provide sites with the bare minimum of information about yourself for this reason. In fact for perhaps for the past 5 years or so I lie about my date of birth to any site asking for it. I have a fake d.o.b. so that if that gets nicked and someone uses it to e.g. try to get a loan in my name, their application will fail. Little things like this are simple and easy but really help.

Regards content being pulled, it's fairly easy regarding porn but the legislation isn't only about porn. Whether something is/isn't illegal if shared with minors, is not straightforward and could be open to legal challenge.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

I’m still yet to learn why this is infringing on people’s rights, and what they cannot do that they could do before?

I’m a little annoyed that Reform have made it so this “free speech” thing has become the de facto counter point to the OSA, because for me curtailing speech is way down on the list of reasons this is a terrible piece of legislation. There’s so many practical reasons that it’s bad before you even get to the free speech stuff.

I’ve still not had a single person come back to my point on why it’s a good thing that people have to now identify themselves to participate in Alcoholics Anonymous forums. Or how I’ve seen people on this very site say “Oh I’ve downloaded this free VPN” which in a best case scenario has harvested their data, in a worst case scenario has installed actual malware on their PC. It’s pushing people away from more mainstream adults sites to the kind of site that doesn’t give a fuck about age verification - I’m sure that will go well.

And now it’s generating court and legal proceedings between Ofcom and sites like Wikipedia - all for the objective of *checks notes* - “protecting the children”. From Wikipedia. Right.

What are we actually doing here? Like really, what are we achieving? I really hope somebody can present strong evidence that the legislation is doing something because otherwise we are causing an awful lot of cost and damage for literally no reason.