Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I was setting out the legal position, as that's what I believe was being referred to, people could choose to break UK law, but they must be prepared to face any consequences that may arise as a result.

I was told earlier this week that Ofcom (and the Advertising Standards Authority) are now using AI to find problematic sites.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

So they are using AI to do very thing they want to stop ? Classic. :sleep:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yes, but that was my point, hypothetically I decide to move my site out of the UK’s jurisdiction, then I can quite happily break the UK law, and, realistically, there won't be any consequences at all.

Well OK, OFCOM might get a Court order to instruct the large ISPs to block access to my site - but see how well that worked in the case of, say 'The Pirate Bay', blocked by Court order so completely impossible to access in the UK - you think?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I don't miss the heady days of Napster . . 3 weeks to download a file that turns out to be something completely different to what you wanted.

Not that I still do that torrent download stuff . . . apart from the occasional Unix distro to experiment with on old laptops

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Politicians have said that various methods would be used to circumvent this tactic eg forbidding UK hosts from hosting such sites, forbidding British advertisers or ad agencies from supplying them with ad revenue/services, a way to starve them to death if you like.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

No, no, please understand that this is simply ‘sound-bites’; ‘forbidding UK hosts from hosting sites.

Yes that’s the whole point, these sites won’t be hosted in the UK site - so irrelevant.

Now, your second point which seems to be ’non-compliant sites won’t be able to collect money from the UK and hence won’t bother to supply a service to the UK’? Well, OK fine, except it is trivially easy to bypass. Also, do you seriously think this will happen?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

No idea, that'll be down to Ofcom/politicians.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The first discussion in this programme is with the head of Ofcom concerning the next focus, which is about protecting women & girls online:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002mmrx

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Which is the best way to do this?

A) ban females from the internet.
B) ban males from the internet
C) ban the internet




* in the current arguments between who is female and who is male, I believe option C would be the fairest and easiest to implement

;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I want to know why Women and Girls are the ones that need protecting?

Why is not all people that need protecting?

As usual Men are labelled as the only people who harm others!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Have you never looked at the statistics around violent crime?

Overwhelmingly, such crimes are committed by men. That includes crimes against women. *A man* may be perfectly safe around *a woman* - but as a category, statistics show that women are not safe around men.

We don’t object to laws against tax evasion just because those laws don’t do anything to make the roads safer.

---------- Post added at 13:02 ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 ----------

A woman is an adult human female. A man is an adult human male. It is not possible for an individual human being born in one category to change to the other. That’s settled science, and is reflected in UK law.

The contrary view isn’t an argument, it’s an activist demand. Feel free to ignore it. The sooner we do, the sooner the men in dresses will get the message.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

And that is because as usual people ignore Men being abused, assaulted etc and just say "he must have done something to deserve it".

How many times are women penalised for slapping a man? I will tell you it's basically never, but a bloke does it and he is either socially or criminally penalised.

How many times does a women make comments about a blokes appearance, finances etc and nothing get's said, but a man does it and it's socially and criminally penalised.

Crimes against men are rarely reported or recorded when a woman commits them, police laugh at blokes for reporting it, blokes and women laugh at blokes when they report it, so blokes just don't bother anymore.

If all the crimes were reported those numbers would switch dramatically but let's keep saying that Women and Girls are the only ones that need protecting.


As for the OSA, if they are going to try and implement new features to protect Women and Girls, well they better make sure that Women and Girls cannot talk to other Women and Girls since they are the main ones who abuse Women and Girls online!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Always been the same mate, put 2 women in the same room and within a couple of hours they'll be bitching at each other over some miniscule perceived clash about hair/handbag/shoes/dress/eyeliner/cellulite/holidays/kids/husbands . . .


and that's before they've had a drink

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The head of Ofcom did explain why women & girls needed extra protection during the discussion.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

"Overwhelmingly" does not mean all/completely, and is not an excuse to ignore it.

A man may also not be safe around a woman (or another man).
Aside from that, a woman may not be safe around another woman either.

This constant focus on women (or girls) only needs to stop.