Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

No, but people have been encourage to take their own lives whilst in a state of mental distress (or literally bullied to death.)

I do agree that much of the crap is instigated by young people.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

There is nothing new about that, it happened long long before the internet ever even existed.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Tell that to all the people who are abused, raped, assaulted, robbed, killed, injured etc etc on a daily basis on the streets of this country.

Tell that to the thousands of girls who are stalked on their way home each day from school!!


As for "Instigation" for one to kill themselves, I didn't realise that bullying etc only came into existence when the internet became mainstream and we gave kids mobile phones/fakebook access, kid's telling other kid's verbally, via graffiti etc to kills themselves never happened before the internet.

Just like child abuse never existed, csam never existed, there was no abuse, no false information etc etc before the internet, the internet created it all!


The online world and "real" world are as bad as each other, but for the most part, because I was raised correctly and warned of the issues that could be online etc like many my age, we/I understood/understand the risks and as such most people I know didn't fall the BS online, unlike these days, where you are not allowed to teach kids about the bad things because you will be labelled an extremist etc!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Oh yes, both have their problems, but the Internet has made it easier to do, especially if they are able to do so anonymously.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I didn't think anyone could now be anonymous on the internet :shrug:

If kids are getting 'bullied and abused' online it's usually from other kids that they know . .

Obviously the more serious stuff is different, but if you "don't talk to strangers" (Ronnie James Dio, Holy Diver album 1983) then you're much safer

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Don't get how anyone lets them selfs be bullied on line. Surely someone could show them the off switch.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

No one understands that simple concept - much like years ago when people complained about whats on TV.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Made me remember a line about Mary Whitehouse from a song by Roy Chubby Brown :shocked:.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Jusr been on the BBC news that mobile phones are to be banned for children in schools by law in England, so hopefully this will help to curtail bullying (includes both smart & non smart phones.)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

How on earth will it curtailing bullying?? They can still access their phones outside of school hours. :confused:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

probably just revert to the tried and tested old school bullying with fists,ah well that's progress for you.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

My thought as soon as I read Richard's latest pronouncement

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

haha yeah, sooner or later everything reverts back to what was easiest to do.

"give us your pocket money or we will beat you up"
.....
.....
.....

a black eye, split lip, 2 camel bites and a twisted arm later . . "was that worth it for 17 pense and a half chewed toffee?"

:D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yes, yes it was

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Of course it wont.
It will make no difference at all.
Firstly bullies will just use alternative methods.
Secondly, they will all still have phones away from school.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Richard, you are so woke!

---------- Post added at 20:00 ---------- Previous post was at 19:58 ----------

The kids will get bored with nothing to do at breaks so playground bullying will resume, just like the olden days when we all had to learn to grow a pair.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Won't stop bullying in the slightest, it will just revert back to how it was years ago, "Oh look at you with your £1 shoes" "oh you don't have (insert brand) clothes" "oh you have a packed lunch how poor are you" and all the other stuff that was used to bully kids.


Again this whole namby pamby attitude is pathetic.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The salient point of this is not to deal with bullying, but to deal with the addictive nature and harm of social media.

---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 ----------

What does being 'woke' mean to you?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I think he refers to finding the magic door which leads to the land of the Golden Butterfly, where rainbow Unicorns trot across pleasant green meadows and the sweet silence is only occasionally broken by the brightly coloured Dragons chuckling to themselves as they pass overhead.

. . or something equally as disturbing :erm:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Utah first state to hold websites liable for users who mask their location with VPNs — law goes into effect, designed to prevent bypassing age checks:

https://www.tomshardware.com/softwar...rification-law

The legal risk could push sites to either ban all known VPN IPs or mandate age verification for every visitor globally.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Or not

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I think this says it all, more idiots who have no clue.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Figures really, I think they've always been a little strange in Utah.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

https://www.theregister.com/security...stache/5224601

Basically according to a survey, kids in the UK have reported bypassing age checks by simply drawing a moustache on themselves - although what the boys do is not mentioned:)!

As said from the very beginning, although I fully support the ‘aims’ of the law, it was never, ever going to work, So much for the robust measures!

But is surely raises another point, if kids are doing this then if follows that they are actively wanting to access this material, yes the measures may, may, stop little Susan or William, ‘accidentally’ stumbling across this, but I doubt that this ever really happened in real life. So some are actively taking steps to bypass the blocks - seriously is anyone surprised?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

No matter what blocks they put in place there will AWAYS be a work around.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Of course there will be; so the answer (or at least a better solution) is .... drumroll..... education and parental responsibility.

And it’s education for both parents and children, parents need to explain to their children, that ‘yes, we’ll put some blocks in place, but I know they aren’t perfect and you’ll probably find stuff which disturbs you, or you are not sure about - in which case come and show me or your Mum, and I promise you that you are not in any sort of trouble and we will explain things to you!’

I think that the basic problem is that too many parents simply want to abrogate their responsibilities and want to hand them off to the government/ISP.

Don’t ever try to provide a technological solution to what is actually a parental problem.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Isn't parents and responsibilities an oxymoron

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Alas often yes - but it depends on the parent.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

No, it should be a tautology - remember, you’re a parent yourself…

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Mine are doing very well for them selfs. Thank you. The great grandchildren don't have any sort of phone . Internet is closely monitored (HAVE NO IDEA HOW) Yes it down to family. Pity we have such a questionable past . Which no doubt they be told about it time.:shocked:

Tautogy is
An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow. Not sure what your point is , guess when l look tomorrow you will have explained

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

In English Language, tautology is the needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word - so my meaning was that being a parent one is responsible for one’s children…

You appear to be confusing linguistic tautology with logical tautology.

You stated

"Isn't parents and responsibilities an oxymoron" - oxymoron is a a figure of speech combining two contradictory or opposing words, which implies you meant parenting doesn’t involve responsibility…

So not sure what your point is…

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

My point is parents don't take responsibility, so you did understand just choose not to. Nothing new then.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

You probably accidentally left out the word "some", as the all-encompassing "parents" is obviously not true, as you provide an example that you yourself (as I am sure lots of other parents do) took responsibility…

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Gosh all this 'parental responsibility' stuff is interesting isn't it.

I'm sure the decline in standards had nothing at all to do with Governments deciding to severely restrict the ways that parents (and teachers) could punish kids for being unruly tearaways.

People of my age (ha) grew up with a clip round the earhole from parents (and the local bobby), and got the cane at school for being naughty. This taught two valuable lessons:

1) you didn't do it again
2) if you did it again, you adapted so you didn't get caught.

nowadays kids don't care . .

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

You’re not wrong, Carth. This country needs a major reset.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Opponents of punishment for unacceptable behaviour say that we tell kids not to fight & that violence is not the answer, but then go on to encourage this by using physical punishment against them.

I can see their point, but we now have the benefit of hindsight after ceasing physical punishment for children and look where it's got us?

---------- Post added at 15:04 ---------- Previous post was at 15:02 ----------

Could websites not simply ban all known VPN's to achieve this, or isn't it as easy as this?

Would it be possible to use a non blocked VPN to across another preferred, but blocked, VPN?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Why should websites - that have already followed the rules and regulations - now be tasked with the further responsibility of trying to sort out a 'knock-on' problem that any fool but the Government could see coming a mile off.

The 'experts' screwed up, let them come up with a solution :Yes:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Legislation could be introduced to force them to ban VPN's, so they'd have to comply to remain within the law. As we've seen with age verification though, some may decide to ignore the legislation or refuse to comply with it, meaning that the ball would then get in Ofcom's court.

I'm interested to know how those that comply could technically do it.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

first rule of fight club ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Any such attempt would be doomed to fail.
You cannot force websites to block VPNs since they can be used by anyone in the world.
Sites are not going to block visitors from the rest of the world because the UK tells them to.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Ahh, yes, I see your point. They couldn't even block VPN's from the UK only, because by their very nature, they won't know who they are!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

the problem we have in this country is the government don't like people to have any expectation of privacy

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I thought it was simply they don't like people

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Instagram U turn on end to end encryption. It appears they don't like it any more as private messages can't be read by AI:

About 1/3 way through:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002wcyp

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

As the UK consults on whether to age-restrict VPNs to prevent minors from bypassing age checks, Mozilla warns regulators that doing so "would undermine the privacy and security of all users," while failing to protect kids:


https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-pr...o-protect-kids

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

This stuff is going to drag on and on, ending up with the same outcome as a someone at Leeds station waiting for HS2 to arrive.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Well considering they don't need a VPN to get around the checks, there is no point.

All they need is, as it turns out is a photo or black pen.

Follow the money and the people forcing it, you will see what the OSA is truly about, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with protecting children and all about control over every aspect of our lives, and this is not conspiracy before any thinks that, this is well known already that some of the companies involved, are making billions, wanting more cameras, trackers and data collection systems in place, as well as global restrictions to stop countries residents being able to communicate freely and easily.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Seen this eventually coming years ago, which is why I have minimal social media presence and pay cash where I can.
You can't escape it, but you can make it difficult for them :D

Some people seem to like living in a fully automated data center though :shrug:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Interestingly, in 1675 King Charles II tried to outlaw coffee shops as he feared that people may plot to overthrow him and thought that political dissent and sedition would occur due to the spreading of "evil and dangerous effects" and defamatory rumours against him.

In the end he had to back down after protests, but it goes to show that it's nothing new that the ruling class fear free & open discussion by the great unwashed.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Ofcom have criticised TikTok & YouTube because their content feeds aren't safe enough for children and a report found that children under 13 are still accessing social media platforms. The influential Education Select Committee is now calling for an outright statutory ban for under 16's, however, as seen in Australia, this isn't as straightforward as it seems.

84% of 8-12 year olds are using restricted social networks meant for teenagers & adults, despite some platforms introducing new features designed to improve children's safety. Socia media owners have called upon Apple & Google to take responsibility for what children can download onto their phones by locking down age inappropriate apps depending on their ages. I assume that this will be done when setting up the phone.

Ofcom has been accused of being too tame in their approach to making platforms change their ways, so Oliver Griffiths (from Ofcom) has said that they are now determined to use all their powers, including the use of large fines, to keep children safe.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The world hasn't changed, just the tec children use to see what they shouldn't.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

FB/Meta are denying me access to more and more groups as it attempts to bully me into giving them my mobile number and use facial recognition on me.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I rarely look at Facebook, perhaps 2/3 times a month to see a few family pics.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I'm a member of local community groups and others with mates from my RAF career. Hardly anything radical or touting "nasty things".

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

See you on a couple of local sites , can't say I have any problems guess I must have put a phone number in pic is nothing to do with me. Noticed that surfshark offer a "fake" phone number for such problems. But that costs money :shocked:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

This was on last night, it shows the tragic effects that cyberbullies can have. It brought tears to my eyes as it was very moving at times.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07lsr4d

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Bullying in general has a tragic effect. Not any different than the way bullying has always impacted people.:rolleyes:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The difference is that the bullied are accessible 24/7 and the remarks are there to read again and again. With in person bullying (often happening at the same time) at least schoolchildren are free at various times of the week.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

every device has an off switch,you can also delete the app that offends you.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

We are talking about children here, they have a different mindset to adults.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yes, I sort of do have to agree with you here. The obvious ‘delete the app or turn the device off’ argument - well it’s not quite that easy.

Again, I believe it comes down to parental responsibility, teach your children how to deal with this, and it may be little more than, ‘you receive a message that you don’t like, come to us. Show us, it’s fine, we well help you with it’.

That is what I told my daughters when they were younger, and yes, I know that not all parents are like that, they either can’t do it, or frankly can’t be bothered.

But does everyone have to be punished, inconvenience, run the risk of their personal information being lost, just to compensate for bad patenting?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Only by choice, you can choose to be offline, and choose not to read messages.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Bullying is often done via other kids publically talking to each other. They denigrate others and may suggest that they kill themselves because nobody likes them etc. They are bound to come across this and it's well known that kids today are obsessed with social media.

Been on todays news that senior doctors have said that, across the profession, it's believed that social media is now viewed as being as harmful as smoking. They are to consult with the Government to urge them to amend the Online Safety Act to deal with this.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

What are parents for ?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Blame the left wing lunatics for the all the bullying going on and the lack of effective punishment!

When a parent is not allowed to say no to a child for fear of that child going to school and telling a teacher a load of BS, then that child being believed instantly and the parents being investigated over said BS, it shows kids they can do whatever they want and get away with it.


There is one thing that all bullies need and when they get it, they 99% of time stop bullying, and that is a good crack round the back of the head or shoved in a boxing wrong with someone half their size that knows what they are doing.

Embarrass a bully, or physically bully/dominate the bully and they tend to stop being a bully, but let them get away with it by just "talking to them" and telling them "how much you emotionally hurt" the other person is going to do nothing but tell them "go ahead, bully them more because we are going to jack about it".

Apparently now (based of what happened with my nieces) if a child physically assault's another child in school, nothing happens to that child until it has happened 3 times in multiple stages, each stage requires a complaint, hospital visit, police report, psychological impact study, emotional impact statements etc etc, meanwhile the little bully carries on assaulting kids laughing at the teachers knowing they are going to do nothing.

In the case of my nieces and my cousins kid, it took my brother and his wife, my cousin and his fiancee as well as my sister and her husband to threaten to sue the school and remove their kids from the school, if they did nothing about the assault on the kids, as well as report it to the local and national papers, eventually the school expelled the kid (7 years old) and he was sent to a "Special Needs" school, where he has since physically attacked a teacher, assaulted 2 kids badly enough for them to require hospital stays, and the school cannot expel him because this is the 4th school he has been to due to being expelled everywhere else due to physical violence, at the age of 7!!


I tell you now, that kid will end up locked up before they are 10 because no one will do what is needed, a good smack on the hand each time they hit someone, it's only way kids like that learn!


Stop pandering to the left wing lunatics and teach kids there are consequences to their actions more than just a talking to and they will stop, it's one of the reasons bullying barely happened when I was in school.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Most people know you're right, not many dare admit it :Yes:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Which has nothing to do with the internet, and therefore by definition, is not cyberbullying.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I actually meant publically talking to each other on whichever social media site is used by them & their peers.

---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:21 ----------

The argument against this is that telling children that violence is wrong & never the answer & then using violence against them is hypocritical & sends out the wrong message. Some can learn to behave with the use of non violent methods.

On the other hand, when all other efforts have been exhausted, a beating may be the only option left with some of them.

I know a teacher, exasperated with one child and unable to do anything official of use to get him to behave, took him into a corner and unofficially threatened him with an adult type beating. It worked.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

A clip around the side of the head isn't really violence is it.

Grabbing someone by the throat, twisting their arm high up their back and smashing their head into a wall with a follow up kicking is violence.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Try it with a copper or someone working in a shop and see if they agree with your interpretation... ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I remember when 'coppers' used to do it, you didn't piss around in front of the local bobby back then :shocked:

Kids now don't give two monkeys because they know they're untouchable

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

there dads aren't ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Which just goes back to my previous point.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Children of today have a different mindset to adults and us when we were Children. To them it would be unthinkable not to be part of social media.

Also, it's better to deal with the bullies than let them carry on humiliating/denigrating their victims behind their back. You can bet your life that the other kids will let the victim know what's been said the day after at school.

Parents of children that have taken their own lives met with the PM today to urge him to stand up to platform owners, key takeaways from the meeting include:

Timeline for Action: Starmer told parents and campaigners that "game-changing" efforts to tackle online harm would be announced in "weeks, not months" rather than years.

The Parents' Demands: Families carried photos of their children and urged the government to show the "political courage" to ban social media for children under 16 until platforms can definitively prove they are safe.

Parental Access to Data: Several parents highlighted the tragic fact that they still cannot access their late children's online data to find out what content influenced their deaths, pushing the PM for legislative change on this front.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I can’t really argue against your goals and wishes; but again the devil is in the detail.

“......and urged the government to show the "political courage" to ban social media for children under 16 until platforms can definitively prove they are safe.”

OK easy enough, just as banning the carrying of knives has stopped all stabbings, hasn't it - it’s trivial to ban, but how do you enforce it? And however can you possibly absolutely define that they are safe - define ‘safe’, in such a way that will stand up in Court. Your definition of what is safe content might be radically different to mine.

Parental Access to Data - that may be a red line that the social media companies wont cross. Remember they are mostly American, and if they simply refuse to obey any UK law, and go to the White House, offer a few million towards paying for the ‘People’s Ballroom’.....?

"Several parents highlighted the tragic fact that they still cannot access their late children's online data to find out what content influenced their deaths...”

OK, think of it from the social media company’s perspective, they may not well know who that individual actually was, they may have signed up with false names and details etc. So they get a demand to hand over that person's information to someone who ‘claims’ to be the parents, but they have no way to be absolutely sure. They make one mistake, being under US jurisdiction, the legal ramifications don’t bear thinking about. You can see why their knee-jerk reaction will be ‘absolutely not’. Jog on!

None of the above means that I am not understanding of the issue, or that something does need to be done. But not a case of ’something needs to be done, this is something, therefore it must be done’.

Technical measures are simply not going to work; it’s education, it’s parental responsibility, and yes I know that’s not a given but you really shouldn’t punish or cause inconvenience for everyone because of the actions of a minority - I believe it is called ‘collective punishment’, somewhat frowned on!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Much of what jem has written above should be copy/pasted into an email and sent to every MP and every person in any Gov. Dept. involved in 'child safety'

Most won't bother reading it, those that do will simply think . . we know what we're doing and carry on :rolleyes:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

A well thought out post with some good points made.

Just to add that supporters of legislation would say that banning under 16's is less about punishment and more about protecting children from the harms that these sites can cause.

Even if they are not targeted by sexual predators, scammers, blackmailers etc, they are designed to be addictive. A survey of today's 16 to 24 year olds on yesterdays Womans Hour said that they wished for things to be different for the next generation of young people.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

On last night's 'Peston' young people were asked what would make them feel safer online. The top answer was to ban those who say inappropriate things & the bottom one was to ban all u16's from social media.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

In the abattoir the sheep where asked what would make them feel safer, the top answer was a good sheep dog, the bottom answer was being turned in to lamb chops.

If you ask the people a question that is loaded that includes affecting them and removing something they will always say that is the least they want. :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

"say inappropriate things" ? Well thats really vague.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The whole thing is a big box of vagueness

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Indeed, although many laws are deliberately vague as it is impossible to absolutely clarify what is allowed and what isn’t. An example would be ‘possession of an offensive weapon’, well we are all guilty of that, I assume we all have kitchen knives. The object is not offensive in itself, it’s how we act with it - if I have a wheel brace in the boot of my car, that’s fine, take it out and run around town waving it menacingly - that’s another matter.

You can’t absolutely define ‘inappropriate things’, what you could do, in theory, is have every single social media post moderated and checked by a human, who makes a judgement call or whether or not this is ‘appropriate’ before it is available to view, not retrospectively.

In practice though the sheer scale makes this impossible, care to guess how many social media posts are made each day? It’s in the billions! You could employ the entire population of the planet, moderating them and you still wouldn’t be able to keep up.*

In an earlier post I did mention ‘collective punishment’ which I think was misinterpreted as assuming I was talking about punishing all under-16s. My bad, I wasn’t clear enough.

What I meant to say is OK ban social media for under 16s, how do you do that?
Well, you obviously have to age check, and that often requires handing over information to a third party to verify your age.

Now I have no social media presence, don’t really require or want one, but if I did, would I be happy handing over details to some random company to prove that I’m not 14? Absolutely not, so I might well go to considerable lengths to bypass said age restrictions. If I, as an adult can easily do this, and I promise you, it’s not difficult, knowledge of how to do it will go round schools and under 16s like wildfire.

And that’s what I meant, everybody is punished, everybody has to risk their data with some organisation which, I suspect, put in the lowest tender bid for the job, and might well have all the security resilience of a damp piece of tissue paper! Or actively break the law and work around it!

At best, it achieves very little of worth, and worse, you have set up a wonderful trove of personal information, just waiting to be hacked.

* and yes I am aware that if the entire population of Earth is employed in moderating messages then they won’t be sending messages, so it’s a sort of negative feedback loop. Look it’s just hyperbolae, yes?;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Case law helps a lot with this - for example the usual test for dishonesty comes from Ivey v Genting Casinos and is in two stages, basically that the person thought their conduct was dishonest, and that a reasonable person would think it is dishonest too - the concept of "what would an honest/ordinary/reasonable person do/think/etc" already exists across several other examples of case law.


I'd imagine that in principle they could introduce some sort of statutory measure saying "posts outside the conduct of reasonable person" or something to that effect and then let courts decide through case law how that is going to be interpreted, but then they would probably not want to put too much through courts because of the time involved in these proceedings.


Some forums/social media sites already do pre-mod posts but in busier sites it's just not practical to do that for everyone

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

When I suggested pre moderated posts, from what I remember, Chris (moderator on here) said that the problem with this is that the site is then effectively endorsing what has been written & this could cause legal problems for them.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I don’t believe that this would cause any legal problem; I came across the following link, with the usual caveat of not blindly trusting anything you find on the internet, it does appear to set out the legal responsibilities.

https://internetlawcentre.co.uk/lega...tors-in-the-uk

Basically, operators of a website which allows for user-generated content are not liable for it, as long as once notified that said content is potentially illegal or defamatory, that they take action within a reasonable time - and that doesn’t necessarily mean that the post is deleted.

But pre-moderated posts is a logistical issue rather than anything else. When I logged in, I was told there were 23 unread post since my last login, about 20 hours ago. So let’s estimate 30 new posts a day (and I’m sure that one of the mods or admins may well, pitch in and claim that the actual average number is far higher). But someone has to be on standby to read 30+ posts a day 24/7 and make a judgement call as to whether or not they are appropriate, and allow or deny them - it’s almost a full-time job!

But, ultimately, this is a private forum, the admins and mods are free to run it however they see fit - hypothetically if they only want to allow left-wing leaning or right-wing leaning views and delete all others - that’s their prerogative. I think (and just to disclose I and not a lawyer), I suspect they would be fine. Of course, in reality, the said forum just becomes an echo-chamber and no longer functions as a way of exchanging ideas - cough ‘Truth Social’, cough. Or try criticising Elon on X and see how long your posts and account lasts!

In theory, all posts being pre-moderated before being made visible on here is probably viable. But X, Facebook, Instagram, etc. which are many, many, many orders of magnitude larger, no it’s just not viable?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

You really shouldn't believe most of the stuff written (or viewed) on the internet.

Heck, I don't believe half the stuff I write, never mind other peoples inane scribblings :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I'll ask Chris if he wants to comment, in case I misunderstood or misrepresented what he actually said.

This is what AI said in response to the question 'Are UK website owners responsible for what's said on user generated sites':

When asked if pre moderation changed this, this is what it returned (make yourself a hot drink & make sure that you're sitting comfortably :D)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

доверяй, но проверяй...


Trust, but verify...


;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Your third paragraph doesn’t negate your second. And in fact, some of the content of the link you posted clearly implies that a website owner exposes himself to liability if shown to do something that encourages or prompts defamatory statements. Operating a pre-moderation policy plainly does exactly that, because on a pre-moderated site every single post is explicitly approved by the site staff.

The logistical reasons are compelling in and of themselves, but the risk of civil liability exists and is serious.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Having a pre-moderated forum could also lead to the mods themselves having a fallout or two, we all have a difference of opinion, and one mans joke may be another mans blasphemy ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Believe me you don’t need a pre-modded forum to get those sorts of fireworks. You should have seen some of our IRC team meets back in the day … :fit:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Oh I know, having been many years ago, a mod on a gaming forum :)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Well I dont need to "claim" since I can access the actual figures. ;)

So far, in 2026, the average has been 51 per day, ranging from 15 on a slow day, to 110 on a busy day. :cool:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Sorry been a while since I actually had chance to do anything on my pc or look at anything on the internet properly, as my Unraid server thank's to the heat has decided to throw it's toys out of the pram and now needs fixing.

The joy's of heat combined with 24 SAS Drives, 8x NVME Drives and a CPU that can pull nearly 700w of power at full tilt!!


The following is not meant to cause offence, but the fact some people will no doubt see it as "Offensive" just goes to prove my point!


So if they want to ban anyone that say's anything classed as "inappropriate" that would be "Everyone" since someone will always find a way to say what you said was "inappropriate".

So any person who is black say's the n-word, types it or even intimates they want to say or type it, they are instantly banned.

Any white person who does the same for the same word is also banned but this time they are also tagged and labelled a racist for saying something that black people say and call each other daily.

Then you have someone british saying "I am going to buy a packet of fags and a lighter", automatically that get's them banned because in America the word "fag" is deemed a homophobic slur and as such is "inappropriate" for anyone to say.

Then you have an American say "I want a fanny pack", that get's them banned because that word is well slang in the UK and a "insult" but also deemed "inappropriate" to many to say or type.


How about when a black person say's "I smelt something that smelt like wet dog, whilst stood next to a white person at a bus stop whilst taking shelter from the rain", that is something that is not only "racist" to some but also "inappropriate" to many.


You cannot ban something or someone from the internet etc for saying something which you feel is "inappropriate", because as I say, you would have to ban EVERYONE.

You cannot even as mentioned later in the thread from the above quote have Admin's and Mod's consistently check and approve every post on a forum or social media site because "something might be offensive", because what offends me is probably not going to offend you and I can fairly confidently say that 99% of what offends you won't offend me.

The expansion of the "Online Safety Act" is already putting kids at risk, because it's removing the ability for kids to see what harms they are potentially being exposed to, because their teachers are "Woke" or because they are being forced on "School Trips" and "After School Clubs" to Mosques, Churches, Political Indoctrination Meetings etc and forced to take part without there parents being informed.


The Online Safety Act is a money, data and control grab, force people to prove their age, make money by doing so, get their information by doing so, stop them accessing websites even legit websites because they don't want their information linked with that site for what ever reason.

You take away the money, you take away the data and the control and the Online Safety Act will disappear, it's why none of the governments involved in it, want to use a system which was created by Linux developers that keeps all the information private and is free.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I imagine that what children/young people meant by 'inappropriate' would be things like harrassment, bullyjng, swearing, making threats, sexualised content, grooming, encouraging self harm/suicide, things of this nature.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Well that doesn't leave much.
Can we lock them up somewhere ultra safe until they become adults?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Ban all smart devices to anyone would perhaps work :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I'm gonna start a "ban the internet" group, we're gonna have web pages, blogs, a forum, a facebook group and everything . . . oh wait :erm:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The obvious answer is to have children’s phones that can only access ‘safe’ sites. Adults shouldn’t have to suffer detriment from these measures and social media sites should not have to jump through hoops to protect children and the hyper-sensitive types.

Such sites that are harmful to children should not be available to children, period. Hyper-sensitives should buy themselves children’s phones.