Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Do these "children's phones" exist?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I don’t think so, but surely it is the way to go.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I'm not sure you fully understand the complexity of what you're proposing...

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Agreed, it's too complex . . and within a month someone somewhere will have found a way to make them perform like a 'normal' phone . . which is why the quote below is the best option I've seen, and will also probably save us all a lot of money.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

One idea put forward is, during set up, for a child's date of birth to be input. This would only make adult sites available from a given age

Various judiciary systems throughout the world have confirmed that social media (and other) sites are responsible for having a duty of care for their users so, even if this measure were adopted, they would still need to make reasonable efforts to protect users.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

a) define an ‘adult site’, yes Pornhub would probably apply, but Readit?

b) Who sets up the device? Is it a child who is given it as a present, who, I’m sure will enter their actual date of birth, or the parent who is firstly technically competent to do it, or is sufficiently tech-savvy to understand this stuff and have had the appropriate ’talks’ with their children.

Now ‘duty of care for their user’, except how can sites possibly know who or how old their users are, and whether or not they need protecting.

Which all circles round to age verification, and how do you do this without forcing everyone to hand over personal information to whoever provided the lowest tender bid - lowest for a good reason.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

What sites children should not be able to access until a certain age (these may be different eg social media at 16, porn at 18) would have to be universally agreed upon, so that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.

It would be up to an adult to set the phone up, but we are then faced with the same problem if some parents not being capable if doing it or that they couldn't care less.

The legal cases surrounding 'duty of care' have involved users of all ages. The last one involving a child could equally apply to an adult:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Again define what is an Adult site, who decides which site would be adult and which would not, who ever that is has a lot of sites to look at and determine if it is adult or not. If it is the site owner who would check they have designated the site correctly

Would you for instance class the BBC news website as adult, would you class Cable forum as adult or child safe.

What about sites that are hosted in country's that do not conform to the rules that are laid down. Do you then ask the ISP's to block those sites however remember that can be circumnavigated by using a simple free VPN and many of those are based in country's that do not have to follow the Online Safety Bill rules.

This is the latest on the toothless OFCOM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c624330lg1ko

Here is another question


I honestly think this will lead to yet more data gathering via age checking. However even the age checking is easily circumnavigated by anyone with a little knowledge.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The Sunday Mirror (as per Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg) said earlier in a headline 'Kids Social Medua Ban Within Weeks'.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

It will be interesting to see how that works.


Kids are already banned from buying alcohol but some still drink it, for example.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

If this idea came to fruituon, which sites are designated as being age restricted would have to be mutually decided upon either country by country or worldwide.

Social media sites and pornography will be easy to define, but I agree that others aren't as clear cut. This site is self defined as a family friendly site but, like you say, should the BBC News website be restricted? On the one hand it may feature images and descriptions of the horrors of war, but should we be restricting news to young people, simply because it's unpleasant?

---------- Post added at 10:33 ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 ----------

Indeed, whatever measures they decide upon, there will always be some who manage to circumvent it. They could ban children from using/buying VPN'S, but some are free and they may be using their parents. Also, what about free WiFi that spills onto the streets? Would hotels etc wish to limit what their adult guests can access? If not, children could simply stand outside with their phones (assuming it wasn't password protected.)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

It's no good trying to 'ban' anything, any one of us could compile a list of things 'banned' in this Country that are still being done regularly.

No matter how many times a child/young adult is warned about the dangers of doing something, there will be a certain percentage that still do it (look at deaths in water this week).

Unless we go full on 'North Korea' there isn't much we can do to stop 'bad things' on the internet without causing problems for everyone else.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Getting closer and closer with each day!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Banning "whatever" isn't about stopping something completely, it's about reducing the number of incidents of "whatever" is.

Banning drink-driving hasn't completely stopped drink-driving, but it has reduced the number of cases and the consequent mayhem caused - there were 1640 drink-driving fatalities in 1979, and 230 in 2019.

Health and Safety Laws at work haven't totally stopped deaths and injuries at work, but they have reduced the number of workplace deaths from 620 in 1974 to 124 in 2024.

Saying you can't fix everything so you shouldn't try to fix anything isn't really an optimal way of trying to progress things...

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yes you're right in what you say, but this 'Online Safety Bill' is starting to look like throwing the baby out with the bath water . .

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yes, quite true Hugh, but the two examples you cite are absolute offences, irrespective of the age of the people involved. If you contravene said laws, and are caught, then expect to be punished.

But it is not illegal to view porn on the internet, nor have a social media account, or view some ‘dodgy’ content (for some definition of dodgy). The whole point is that the OSA is trying to legislate methods to block under 16s from viewing material that is mysteriously fully available to them on their 16th birthday. It’s not that under-16s need to verify their age, but everyone does. Everyone will be expected to hand over personal information to some third party just to access perfectly legal material.

This is what many take issue with, not the aims of the Bill itself. Will it cause more problems than it ever solves? And when it is pointed out that this regulation can and will only apply to UK-based companies and it will be trivially easy to work around - the proponents become more strident. Bans on VPNs, age restricted use of VPNs - which is a bit of a circular argument, special magical children’s phones, etc. all of which rely on a degree of magical thinking, similar to demands for backdoors into encryption while still keeping them secure - these two things are mutually exclusive.

Going back to one of your arguments, this is equivalent to not only making drink-driving illegal, but mandating that every single car in the UK is fitted with a breathalyser - you have to prove that you are sober before the engine will start. You have to first prove your innocence before you can go about your legal business.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

After you have presented your licence to the cars built in scanner, which then takes a picture of you using the built in camera, and uploads both to a central AI server that verifies its your licence .....

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

. . and then checks your driving habits (speed, indicators, mirror use, overtaking maneuvers, etc) and reports back to central AI HQ, which then issues a fine (£25) for each and every time you fail to adhere to the strict driving procedures as laid out in the digital form you need to accept as read and understood before the car will even start.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I wouldn't worry too much. It won't be too long where cars will be self driving, in fact people won't usually own a car anymore. They'll simply book a self driving car as they do now for taxis, paid for via monthly subscription or single use charges for infrequent users.

Bad driving, drink driving won't be issues anymore, unless they decide that a sober qualified driver has to be present in driverless cars in emergencies to take over. Saw some footage in America where they get stuck in certain situations, so I don't think the states has such a restriction.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

So that's driving instructors and examiners out of a job then, and how will insurance work . . and at what price? :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Glad i will be 6 foot under by that time. The world will be a horrible place once the offended have removed every pleasure from life.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yes, i've long said that automation/AI will lead to job losses never seen before. It's why I believe that all immigration (apart from exceptional circumstances like skill shortages) should now only be allowed on a temporary basis.

The old attitudes of people being expected to work for a living if they are capable and being expected to work for the things that they want will be swept away in favour of unconditional benefits* for those that would prefer not to work.

This will be costly enough as it is for those living here, without the added burden of immigrants coming here.

* I can see most/all benefits being scrapped in favour of a taxable universal guaranteed minimum income being paid to everyone, paid for by cuts to existing support and a tax on the use of AI/machines by employers dispensing with human labour.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Soon the only actual people working will be the physical/manual workers, and if they decide it's not worth the hassle we really will be in that canoe with no paddle :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

These jobs will still attract those for whom working provides more than a wage eg an identity, self respect, social networking etc. They will also be paid a wage over and above their Universal Basic Income, so will receive reward for their effort, so I don't think it will be too much of a problem.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Ah yes those ever reliable self driving cars that currently are driving the wrong way down roads, getting stuck at basic junctions, getting stuck in traffic and deciding to drive on the footpath and many other issues that you can find by searching for the Waymo issues.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Much like humans then , what did you expect :rolleyes:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I would expect them to be smart, not stupid.

Humans wouldn't just stop and block traffic because the power went out.

https://www.facebook.com/SFChronicle...5863638631719/

Or drive around in circles for hours because of a glitch.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/czx20g00ly1o

Humans also intentionally drive into flooded roads instead of finding an alternative route.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy2011dl4xo

Humans also drive into constructions sites don't they for no reason other than "oh it's technically the fastest route, even though the roads are closed"

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sl-ShGlEylI


I wouldn't even consider getting into one of them!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Sorry but have seen cars driven all the ways you listed, round and round. A roundabout. Cars driven into flooded roads and getting stuck. Ok so following sat navs. Lorries , buses hitting bridges . Driving the wrong way on motorways. "Dieing "on the road , running out of fuel.. not saying they are safe and I can't see me getting in one. However they are not doing anything that humans haven't done

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Safe sites are already defined. If children’s phones simply had a walled garden of safe sites that were suitable for them, that would not be a tremendous technical problem.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Safe sites are already defined? Are they? Who defined them? Is there a list? But as some three new websites are setup every second, that’s a hell of a job to keep track, determine if they are ’safe’ and add them to the walled garden list, isn't it?

I mean hypothetically, I setup a site ’nicekiddyfriendlystuff.com’, having only educational items and then decide six months later, that it’s not making me any money and decide to host hard-core porn on it. What happens then?

Does each ’safe site’ have to be checked every, let’s say, every week?

No I'm sorry, but it is actually a massive, massive technical problem.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Indeed. Things are not always as easy or as black & white as people think.

Interestingly, it was on this morning's 'Morning Live' programme that, since last January in order to comply with the Online Safety Act, iPhone users are having to upload a copy of their credit card or driving licence to prove that they are over 18. I'm not allowed to drive, do driving licences have dates of births on them? If not a driving licence holder may only be 17!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yes, they do.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Gosh, are there still people that stupid?
or is it Morning Live making stuff up?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I must say, I find it hilarious that most of the technically minded people posting on this site have such a negative mindset that every new innovation suggested comes fraught with impossibilities! Mate, you need to stop seeing impossible obstacles and free up your mind to find solutions.

The answer to my question is actually very straight forward. Such an I-Phone to protect younger children has found its way onto the market already. It’s designed ‘specifically for children, free from social media and web browsing’, and it’s called Sage Mobile.

These phones automatically filter harmful websites and adult content, and it offers only pre-vetted safe apps. VPN’s and all back door routes into mainstream internet are blocked.

That is the way to go with online safety. Let adults be adults and leave them the hell alone to look at what they want without trying to have them jump through hoops to get at it.

https://tech-user.co.uk/2025/07/17/i...Ddriven%20apps.

For older children, a more appropriate device could be designed. This could ensure that Safari would restrict access to approved sites only, and no App Store access would be possible. Educational and communication apps could be approved by parents and safe search would be enforced. DNS filtering would be active. This would create the ‘walled garden’ similar to how children’s tablets, school devices or services like Gabb Wireless and Pinwheel approach child safety.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The Sage iPhone (at release date) had a monthly subscription of either £119 or £149 per month, and doesn't appear to be available now...

And if you look on the Sagemobiie UK website, the doesn't actually appear to be a way to buy one of their phones...

https://www.sagemobile.com/

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Way out of the price range for most people then. Who would pay that amount a month for a child's basic phone...

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...pounds-a-month

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

wow lol

I can sell you a brick for £27 :rofl:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yes, the website is completely devoid of any specifics as to how it managed to do this, or indeed exactly how it works. It appears to simply be an iPhone with certain apps removed from it, and access to the App Store restricted in some way. Which if you use the parental controls on iOS, you can do anyway. But perhaps the £119 per month is the acceptable cost for some parents to save a little time and effort!

I wonder what would happen if little Jimmy, factory resets the phone or restores it using DFU mode? I suspect it becomes a normal iPhone with all restrictions gone but still costing little Jimmy’s parents a small fortune each month.

But all academic, as you say, it appears to be impossible to purchase anyway now, assuming that it did ever exist and wasn’t just some vapourware product.

---------- Post added at 15:59 ---------- Previous post was at 15:53 ----------

No, no, no, you’ll never be a tech-bro, with that attitude.

What you should say is 'I can sell you a £ 27monthly subscription for the brick.....'

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Gosh no, that would involve bank accounts and stuff. I'd sell them cash in hand sold as seen, in that dark alley round the back of the Co-op ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Does the brick come in different colours, and size ?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Oh yes, there's a choice of colours, sizes, and even a choice of textures. Some even have air holes for extra cooling.
Payment up front guarantees delivery at point of purchase, if you start haggling too much we aim to deliver it . . usually between 2am and 4am through your largest window :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

OK, fair enough, but the point I was making was that the ability to provide safe phones for children was technically possible.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Lots of things are technically possible, finding people that actually want it is a stumbling block to making them ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

One also has to bear in mind the "Iron Triangle" of development - Accuracy, Speed, Cost; choose two out of three...

You can have it accurate and fast, but it won't be cheap
You can have it accurate and cheap, but it won't be fast
You can have it fast and cheap, but it won't be accurate


Also, as Carth said, is there an actual (profitable) market for these phones?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yes, but if there's no demand for something like this, what's all the fuss about? The politicians and Richard seem to be obsessed with this.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Once more we see you making ridiculous over the top remarks to try and support your standpoint. Being interested in something and finding it important are not the same as an obsession.

Paul is clearly interested in and has a knowledge of IT, Chris is clearly interested in and has knowledge of politicical issues. Are they 'obsessed' with these subjects to the point of them being harmful to them? No.

There is clearly a demand to stop people being scammed, for children to be driven to suicide, for paedophiles to be prevented from accessing children etc etc. Whether the Online Safety Act is the best way to achieve these aims or is working as well as it should in all these areas is what's being discussed.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Richard, I should imagine most people on here want children protected. But what you are not getting is that the cack-handed way this government is going about it not only disadvantages adults as well, but it will be ineffective as kids will simply use VPNs instead.

What I am saying is that we need to find a more targeted method that actually works. The Online Safety Act is not the way to do it and creates a huge amount of work for the tech companies.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The only way to create a safe online environment where no harm comes to anybody, is to close the internet.

Then we can move forward to prevent physical bullying and abuse in schools, offices, building sites and the street by closing down life.

Who's with me?

:D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Within the last hour or so, the PM has given Google & Apple three months to stop children seeing or sending explicit content. If they don't, legislation will be introduced to require it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cr5j43zp2rpt

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch says it's "not enough" to ban certain features and argues that social media "is not for children".

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

:drool::drool:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

They don't have a clue do they. :nutter:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

i think this is political suicide these "children" will soon be voters.and they won't forget who took their friends and lifestyle away from them

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Meanwhile I am doing something to secure my data and network, won't need to worry about the dictator in charge our lord and saviour starmer.

There are things I have noticed in the software for the Ubiquiti Unifi Dream Machine Pro (the white box at the top), that I think all ISP's should be forced to put in the router software and that is the ability to completely, block app's, websites, ip's etc but that won't happen because the Government and there paymasters won't make money that way!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Thought this was a reasonable summary of what is, and isn’t, possible…

https://www.patreon.com/posts/160600382

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

A Leeds man has been sentenced to more than six years in jail after admitting encouraging a vulnerable US citizen to kill themselves while on a video call:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-on-video-call

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Your point is ?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

There isn’t one, but in other news;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwykw759v3po

Wow, just wow. It’s almost as if the politicians have no f’ing clue, what they are doing. Surely not?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

If you are vulnerable, there are some bad people on the internet. If not, don't go on the internet encouraging vulnerable people to kill themselves, as this will now have consequences.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Its always had consequences, under existing law.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

This is when plans were first put forward and it's described as a 'new offence'. What was the previous legislation that was used?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/t...m-to-face-jail

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Pretty sure that would be the Suicide Act 1961 wouldn't it?

Amazing how so many people like yourself seem to think there was no laws in place to prosecute people prior to the age of Labour 2024, when there was actually laws but the police, cps and government at the time just didn't make it public that they were being used, because political point scoring over suicide etc wasn't good for anyone, too bad this Labour Government not only wants to use it as political point scoring but also seems to wants to encourage it with their blanket ban hammers and Nazi inspired style control systems!

"Papers, where are your papers, you are not allowed to walk on this side of the street without a permit from the government"

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Not a big fan of the OSA, but it was passed under the previous Goverment, and received Royal Assent on 26th October 2023…

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Not in it's current form and also wasn't implemented.

Labour as soon as they got in, started amending it to take away freedom and the ability to use the internet without needing to hand over biometric data and valuable data such as driving license scans to companies in order to use the internet.

It won't be long before even this forum will be required to implement Age Verification because it is classed as Social Media.

Your local newspaper is going to be required to implement it for online comments.

The OSA has never and will never be about protecting children, it is purely a money making racket implemented by the political donors, control system and data gathering scam.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I know there have been amendments making it illegal to encourage serious self-harm, cyberflashing, and sharing non-consensual intimate images - can I ask what are the others that concern you, please?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yes, this is probably what Paul was referring to:

I am aware that some of the issues covered by the Online Safety Act (I just wondered which legislation Paul was referring to, so thanks for providing this) had various laws relating to them. The Government's that introduced it say that also including them is to make dealing with these offences quicker & easier, also the Act is designed to be able to react quickly to things like changes to future tecbnologu.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I have no issues with that stuff being made illegal, what I have an issue with is it being used as an excuse to force 24/7 surveillance on each and every one of us, and surveillance on everything we do on our devices, every conversation we have etc.

Don't tell me they are not it, because they are, they have already looked into it, they are already forcing hardware manufacturers and software developers to implement it despite them saying "we won't be doing it".

The level of surveillance being introduced, the level of restrictions and control being introduced, the twisting of what was once a good idea, all because the Labour Government want to stop the people from being able to do anything they don't like.

I am grateful I have not had kids nor will I have kids, because I wouldn't want to bring a kid into a world where they are not allowed to be proud of who they are, not allowed to move freely, think freely or speak freely!

For those who think the Conservatives, Reform, Lib Dems, Greens etc will do any better or remove any of the stuff that Labour have put in place, well you are delusional, money is king and none of them will say no to their donors!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Technically it already should do. The OSA doesn't make much distinction between a forum and other forms of social media in terms of what is considered in scope.
It was, and they had a chance to repeal it or not implement it, they chose to keep going with this, and there's also a fair chance they voted for it at the time as well.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Indeed, the Act had all party support.

Regarding the banning of social media for u16's. 90% of parents who responded to the consultation about this were in favour of the ban & the Conservative leader of the opposition has said that she agrees with the ban & so will be supporting it.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

and what do the under 16s think about it

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Doesn't matter, they are not to be listened to, just like parents who took part in a Government and Ofcom related study, although I am for some reason struggling to find it, where the overall majority was that parents said they should be in charge of controlling what their kids see not the government.

I will keep trying to find it, and when I do I will post a link, but it puts a spanner in the works of those who seem to think that every parent on the planet wants to have to prove they are over 16 in order to use the internet, buy a newspaper or even walk into some shops.

How long before anyone under the age of 16 is not allowed in a shop because they might see a newspaper or magazine with a women on the front who, has been on a diet and the government says "Dieting is bad, it gives people mental health issues about their weight"!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

All governments want to control the public, just set about it in different ways.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

https://www.ippr.org/media-office/va...ren-ippr-finds

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

*cough*

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I suspect that the majority of people in this country will be broadly in support of a ban for under-16s. As always, easy to pass a law, but how will it be implemented, how will it be enforced?

Let’s ask for (sensible, please) suggestions from my fellow posters; ‘just how would you implement it?'

I’ve seen some ideas; ‘special child-friendly phones’ - but not really practical for technical and commercial reasons.

So we have the problem of a phone or other device (laptops, some people still use desktops - especially gamers, games consoles etc.) which in the hands of an under-16 behaves differently to an identical device being used by a 17 year old. How does the device know? Remember it’s not possible for the under-16 to have to fail to show that they are old enough, the onus is on everyone else to have to prove that they are! Hopefully this could be done in a simple, non-invasive way - but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting. More likely it’ll be send scans of your passport along with a mugshot to some third-party who will absolutely promise to keep it all secure, and destroy the info once age has been confirmed, and somehow the device knows this.

Oh and what happens if it’s a shared device?

But anyway, let’s assume that the ban becomes law and some age-verification method is in use. What happens when a tabloid paper reveals that some thousands of under-16s are still using SM - parents just ‘allowing’ it because they didn’t understand the parental controls, a bug in the verification system, someone found and disseminated a ‘work-around’?

Will even more draconian restrictions be put in place, again, for everyone, to try to close these loopholes - rinse and repeat?

I’m not against taking steps to protects children from the worse parts of the internet (or the world in general - the internet is just a means of communication), but let’s make sure that the ‘cure’ isn’t as bad as the ‘disease’!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Tell me you don’t understand how statistical sampling works without telling me you don’t understand how statistical sampling works… ;)

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sampling.asp

https://yougov.com/en-gb/about/methodology

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Tell me how a survey of 2000 people (catered to the poll subject) is a valid indication of what every parent in the UK think.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I fear that Hugh would have to explain the mathematics behind statistical sampling. Trust me, it’s not immediately obvious, but it does work.

If you are interested consider https://towardsdatascience.com/small...-1a1b15052ac8/

You’ll have to wade through the maths, but it does explain how an apparently small sample can fairly predict the probable views of a large population.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

It isnt, nor do we know what questions were actually asked (loaded or worded to get the answer wanted).
Its easy to ask if if you just think something is a good idea, without going into detail or the consequences.

I'm sure if you asked parents if families with children should all get free access to the internet they would all say its a great idea, without thinking about issues it may create.

This is complete ballcocks
Loss of childhood ? Seriously, what planet are they on ?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

So the dictator in charge, has just announced the death of digital privacy in the UK, with the introduction of a Social Media Ban, 10 sites initially but will be rolled out to all sites where communication can happen, including games etc.

Goodbye freedom, goodbye internet, it was nice whilst it was around.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has, this morning, confirmed that under-16s will be banned from social media as part of a major overhaul of online safety rules for children. New legislation hoped to be in place by Spring 2027

I'm 78 is this new legislation going to mean I have to prove I'm over 16 on every social media site I visit. :Yikes:
Also who will be the first to create a VPN where P = persona. It will only take one person to do it and kids will spread the information faster than a wild fire.
Never underestimate a young teenager they will always find a way around something that tries to stop them doing what they want to do.

Don't get me wrong I do believe we should protect our children but so much that has been put forward is already a naive attempt to turn back the tide.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Tell me how a loaded question (every parent in the UK) tries to invalidate the established science of statistics? ;)

The survey is a statistical representation of a representative sample, which has been proven (within a margin of error of approx. +/- 3%) to provide (a high % of the time) results which reflect the real world.

Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t make it invalid - I don’t understand how quantum tunnelling works in the microchips in my phone/tablet/PC, but somehow the devices still work… :D

https://afry.com/en/insight/fascinat...ntum-tunneling

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

You've got to be so careful not to use loaded questions. Anyway, back to the discussion, when will the government admit that the proposed policy is a failure?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

wait for the u turn like the rest of us do ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Would I have to prove I'm over 16 on Facebook, despite I've been on there nearly 18 years?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Mainstream media is more responsible for that than anyone else.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Oh I understand 'statistical representation of a representative sample' as you nicely put it. I also understand that it's a very small sample size, coupled with quite possibly a select (biased) choice of those polled, coupled with it's the Gov. once again possibly pushing a current controversial subject out there to show 'the people' that it's well supported.

Lots of 'ifs, buts, possibly and could be' in there but that's opinions for you ;)

Anyway, besides that, small sample statistical polling stuff is something you and I always disagree about, probably always will, it's very much a marmite thing I guess, but as long as we limit it to the occasional :PP: at each other all is well :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Blair wanted us to have digital IDs. Brown dropped the priority to do so. The Lib-Con period saw the idea dropped completely. I smell Blair's dogma on this announcement "to save the children".

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Facebook (Meta) continues with it's own methods....

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

No - the fact you’ve been on it over 16 years pretty much proves you’re over 16…

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

There are situations where that isn't true though e.g. there is multiple people operating the account or it has changed hands

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

In Australia, where they already have a ban, 70% of children are still accessing banned services.

There is also a suggestion that 16/17 year olds will face restrictions whilst on social media, namely an end to infinite scrolling, romantic AI chat companions and overnight curfews.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

If Starmer’s still in power, the U-turn will come BEFORE the legislation is enacted!

---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:01 ----------

Isn’t this what we have been saying ever since this debate started?

One pupil in Australia says that only three people in the whole class have not got around the ban.

The government is only doing this to placate the population. We all know it won’t work.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

i hear that a reform government will repeal this nonsense

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The only people that think it will work are those pushing it onto us . . . a bit like the electric cars by 2030 thing they've just had a wobble on

edit:
. . and other nonsense one hopes

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

it's probably sad loners who don't have and never will have children of their own

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yet we don't ban 16 & 17 year olds from being out alone at night. In fact should they be driving at that age, I'm all for protecting young people and could've gone along with something to protect them on social media but this isn't it

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

. . or voting ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

They are probably referring to infinite scrolling and addiction to social media (it's designed to keep people on it) instead of socialising in the real world.

Then there is the darker side of bullying, harrassment, blackmail, bribery and, worst of all, having their lives cut short.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Much of those things can also happen outside the 'safety' of their bedroom, where they can simply 'close' whatever app they're using. You can't just 'close' it in the playground, in the park, the corner shop, or just walking down the street.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Ive always found "infinite scrolling" to be the exact opposite of addictive, it really annoys me.

---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:51 ----------

I just noticed that it includes "YouTube", since when has YT been "Social Media" ?
Its utterly ridiculous, my grandaughter loves all the stuff like Bluey, Peppa Pig etc that she can watch on YouTube. Its full of proper kids stuff.