Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Be interesting to know how many parents have their kids on contracts in their name.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

On the contrary .....


Post edited.
Its very clearly been pointed out that the party you are referring to had no involvement, or even the power, to make changes to Scottish policing in the last 25+ years.
Therefore I can only conclude you are deliberately trolling now (since I dont believe you to be dumb and thus not comprehend) - either way, move on, its getting off topic.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I dont think under 18's can have contracts in their own name.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Well yes, my suspicion is that rather than pay £800 for a new iPhone for a teenager parents would be more likely to take out a contract with a spend cap. This would have to be in the name of a parent making a ban on the sale of smartphones to teenagers pointless.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

All 3 of my kids have* contract phones. They are secondary phones on an account in my name. Some phone providers actively encourage this by giving discounts for multiple phones on the same account. A ban on smartphones for under 18s is unworkable.

*I should say ‘had’, as 2 of them are now over 18 and one of them has now taken on paying for the phone himself. But they all started out on a single family account.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I’m no expert in the handset market for under 18s but I suspect the “hand me down” premium handset from when a parent gets a new phone is also a thing.

The number of kids saving up their pocket money and walking into Currys themselves - less than 10%? 20%?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Each of our kids got their first phone as a hand-me-down from their grandmother who used to get a mid-range one from her provider whenever it was offered to her as an incentive to re-contract.

Game (as in the computer game store) is where all our kids phones came from, second hand, once they were old enough not to want gran’s cast-off Samsungs. They have been iPhone-only ever since. The contract I have is SIM only from BT.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And in the midst of all this Meta thought it a good idea to lower the age for WhatsApp from 16 to 13:

https://news.sky.com/story/meta-crit...to-13-13113483

A discussion on Channel 5 earlier revealed that WhatsApp is currently the second most popular platform for children aged 3 to 17.

Some contributors said that it was down to parents to police this and not social media platforms or the Government, whilst others believed that children of irresponsible parents deserved protection.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And why should responsible children with responsible parents be the victims of arbitrary regulation?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Why not, Facebook is 13, Tiktok is 13, Snapchat is 13, Instagram is 13 ... Seeing the pattern yet ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I imagine that they've done this to align it with the others. However, it wasn't too long ago rhat the Government wanted to be able to see encrypted messages and WhatsApp said that they would resist this and ultimately pull out if the UK if needs be. Ultimately this move to lower the age to 13 can only antagonise the legislators.

At some point I think we'll come to a situation where it will have to be decided who ultimately decides these things, the Government of the day or social media platforms.

---------- Post added at 02:22 ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 ----------

Such legislation has to be arbitrary as it cannot distinguish between the two groups.

Responsible parents wouldn't be allowing 3 year olds onto social media, but may allow a young teen onto it. It's these immature minds that are being contacted by hebophiles, usually for sexual purposes.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Or... the people? The vast, vast, vast majority of whom are giving their kids smartphones.

---------- Post added at 02:29 ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 ----------

Which is where it fails. Legislating over the people requires the consent of them. Land Rover parents want to locate their kids with their iPhones on GPS. If the poor parents don't care where their kids are why should the rich ones be denied a security device?

Would love to see the stats on grooming (by total strangers) over WhatsApp alone as a percentage of all grooming.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Well, in theory the Government represents the will of the people.

I don't think it's possible to define whether being rich or poor defines whether one is a good patent or not. I've known terrible rich parents and excellent poor parents.

Both paedophile & hebophiles find social media attractive because they think that they can anonymously obtain sexual gratification by talking sexually to children and/or send & receive pornographic pictures. Some will groom them and attempt to meet them for sex.

If you do a search for videos of paedophile hunter videos you'll see how prolific on this sort of contact is on social media. These groups regularly post 'stings' day after day to highlight their activity and (I assume) to make people think twice about doing it.

Of course, things like cyber flashing can also be done to adults and, whilst this may upset or offend them, it's much more serious when attempts are made to sexualise children.

They find it difficult to form relationships as adults, can turn to alcohol or drugs, or even end their own lives.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

To be clear: I didn't say that.

I said rich parents would object that parenting decisions be removed from them on the basis of the lowest common denominator.

Having a phone, or device, they could locate by GPS is a safeguard a parent may wish to use. I say this as someone who has considered this for an older person.

I'm most definitely not putting the word 'paedophile' into any search engine.

So WhatsApp specifically has nothing to do with any of this?

People end their lives, all the time, for a variety of reasons that there is limited appetite to investigate or resolve.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Whattsapp is the second most popular platform for children. Along with the other social media platforms they are facilitating these issues.

Why don't you want to pit the word paedophile into a search engine? The word has lots of legitimate uses and you won't be exposed to illegal pornographic material.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Very much this. Our kids all attended high school in a rural setting, which means it was some distance from our home and reliant on council funded taxis or minibuses for at least part of the journey in and out - unless of course there was an after school club or a planned visit to a friend’s house which might be in a different village or (not uncommon in our case) on a farm literally in the middle of nowhere.

Find My is the single biggest reason our whole family have iPhones and is the reason we have been able to give our kids freedom to have a social life they would not otherwise have had, given where they grew up. It is not primarily about surveillance - (us making sure they are where they say they are) but much more about contingency planning when times or venues change, or when we have to find one of them on a friend’s farm somewhere. :D

Also, now two of them are young adults and learning how to negotiate city life, sometimes they’re grateful that when they get stuck, I can see where they are and either advise them where to go to get a bus/train/taxi or else come out and collect them myself. The eldest one, having his own phone account, is of course under no obligation to keep Find My switched on for his parents as it’s his phone, which he’s paying for, but even he is happy for it to remain on.

Off topic, but the unspoken contract with the young adults in our family is that even though me & missus can see where they are at all times we never ask them ‘how did you enjoy town last night?’ - we ask them what they got up to on their weekend same as our parents would have asked us, and let them tell us as much or as little as they want.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It would be a shame to lose this safety aspect if smartphones were ever banned for U16's.

If they are, a budding entrepreneur should invent a device that can carry out this function that isn't a smartphone.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Nobody is proposing to ban the use of smartphones by under 16s or any credible mechanism for enforcing it.

A ban on the sale of something by age doesn’t stop access to it.

Such devices already exist although I’m sure “can I put this GPS tracker on you?” is much less appealing to a teenager than “you can have an iPhone, but find my iPhone stays on”.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

They already exist for Apple and Android…

https://www.apple.com/uk/airtag/

https://www.independent.co.uk/extras...-b2526969.html

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You keep saying ‘if’ as if it is in any way likely to happen.

It is not going to happen. It is not even slightly likely.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What a good idea, these would be useful for keeping an eye on luggage whilst travelling.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Must be very lucky travelled more times than I recall ( must be well over a hundred times) trans Atlantic and across the States never lost any luggage. Unlike a trip to Belgium case went to India :shocked:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I feel I should point out this is not unique to iPhones, I have it activated on my Android phones, and can log into my google account to locate them.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I have Android, how much are they Paul?

---------- Post added at 02:04 ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 ----------

There was a programme on ITV earlier called 'Olivia Atwood Vs The Trolls'. It tells the story of how she was trolled and how she managed to speak to one to ask why they did it. This trolling won't have done her ADHD any good:

https://www.itv.com/watch/olivia-att...trolls/10a3897

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

How much are what ? Phones ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You can even get one for your dog: pit pat;)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You’re lucky then, every time I’ve flown to either MSP or SFO from AMS my luggage has been lost for 2-3 days to the point I now put three days worth of clothing into my carry on.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Haven't any idea if this is the reason but I always went business class . Belgium wasn't, never risked it again:D

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Air tag trackers.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

£20+ each.



Nonsense posts also removed, seriously ...

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Non-Apple alternatives are also available for around half that from the usual online stores (and are arguably better as they have a hole so you can thread them on a keyring)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Interesting, thanks guys :)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-688230...e%20MoJ%20said.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

If they have no intention to share it then how is it going to "cause alarm, humiliation, or distress to the victim" (or anyone). :confused:

You would have to share it to do that.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I suspect there is some attempt here to differentiate between pictures made privately between consenting adults, as opposed to non-consenting. You could presumably make something on your computer and show the screen to someone by way of a threat without actually ‘sharing’ it in legal terms.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

From reports I heard ,only half listening, lawyers think that proving this would be very hard . More window dressing perhaps :erm:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Maybe it's also designed to deal with situations where someone creates material and then goes on to threaten to share it or show it to somebody.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It’s definitely designed to criminalise the threatening to share, yes. It seems also designed not to criminalise the making-of for consensual purposes.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Sharing explicit pictures without consent is surely already illegal anyway ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Digital image creation is a surprisingly broad definition. If you download a digital image, in the eyes of the law, once it is viewed, it has been ‘created’ by converting ones and zeroes into the image. This is how people with currently illegal content on their hard drives are convicted, even if they did not create the content themselves in the traditional sense.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The first feature is Anita Rani interviewing Daisy Greenwell from a campaign group called Smartphone Free Childhood. Daisy believes that parents need more guidance from the NHS, Government & schools as most don't even know about the minimum age restrictions that apply.

She went on to say that there is mounting evidence that children are spending more and more time online . 8 to 10 year olds are spending 6 hours a day on their phones, with 11 to 14 year olds spending 9 hours! The effect is that this is making them more lonely, depressed & anxious.

In the last 3 years the likelihood of a child having mental health issues has increase by 50% in the last 3 years. Eating disorders amongst children have doubled in the last 6 years and the amount of under 18's taking antidepressant medication has increased by 44%..

It is acknowledged that all this isn't down to the use of smartphones alone, but the Children's Commissioner has said that there is a link between their use and eating disorders. It is thought that there was an increase in screentime due to lockdown.

Ofcom research has found that nearly a quarter of 5-7 year olds now have their own smartphone and 40& of them are using WhatsApp, despite the minimum age being set at 13. They also noted that parental controls appear to be diminishing, so websites must do more to protect children.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001xfv9

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Parents need guidance on parenting. Colour me surprised.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

From 0:17 (less adverts) Marianas Spring, the BBC Disinformation Correspondent Journalist, talks about about internet trolls:

https://www.itv.com/watch/katie-pipe...9/10a2809a0022

What drives somebody to troll somebody that they've never met and don't even know? Through her research Ms Spring has found that the trolls she has met are very frustrated, angry, upset people who feel let down. They then take out their frustrations on one particular person because user to user sites allow you to dehumanised the person on the other end as a result they don't psychologically think or behave as though the person is real. One troll who was traced was interviewed about their behaviour and casually said that he used to close his phone and went to bed after trolling somebody.

After explaining that there is actually another person with feelings who is being affected by their actions, a lot of trolls are able to reflect on their behaviour and say "I didn't realise that I was causing harm in tjat way".

She goes on to say rhat, although trolls are the bad guys, they are sometimes victims themselves because they're falling foul of the content that they're seeing themselves and it's leading them to behave in a harmful way.

In essence, I think she's saying that she believes in the phenomenon that "Hurt people hurt people'.

I've met this young lady and she's very professional and wise for her age. She's totally committed to her job and genuinely wants to help in every aspect of her job.

Sadly, out of all BBC journalists, she receives 80% of the abuse directed at them. She believes that the ultimate aim of trolls is to drive people off various websites, but that this won't succeed as part of her job is to be on social media. She deals with the abuse she gets by viewing it as a case study (which is the best way to deal with it IMO).

Finally, she says that websites appear to be more interested in making money than protecting their users (again something that I agree with her about).

---------- Post added at 20:04 ---------- Previous post was at 19:58 ----------

In Finland they have social media literacy lessons. It wouldn't be a bad idea for us to have them too.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

On GMB this morning there was something about 12 hour school days. This is the break the cycle of continuous mobile phone use. Right...good luck with that....

They need to make up their minds. Is it the online content or the actual abuse / usage of mobile phones, social media etc that is the problem. They'll be going after PCs, PlayStations and Xbox's to try and stop online gaming next.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Spring has ZERO legitimacy, I’d rather hear Mr Tumble’s take on it.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Thats obviously unrealistic, for so many reasons.

They have been complaining about games (and their influence) for the last 30+ years, nothing new there.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

That is a long time. Surely they can't mean lessons for 12 hours a day? Do they mean a breakfast club, lessons & then after school activities or somewhere to do their homework?

This could be the answer to childcare problems for working parents, but even so 8am to 5 or 6pm would be better.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What about time for kids to be kids? To play around, go to fields/woods/parks etc, making dens, getting dirty, scrapes and scratches.
I grew up in South Africa where, because of the weather, you start early and end around lunchtime, whole afternoon free for sport, homework and freedom.


But isn't this getting off base a bit?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

That's all been replaced with sitting on their own in their bedrooms with online gaming.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Yup, instead of playing outside and talking to each other they're sat inside gaming and/or talking on social media.

---------- Post added at 13:38 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------

BBC lunchtime news says that tik tok could be banned by the UK & the USA over security concerns because it is Chinese owned.

If they refuse to sell, nobody wants to or can afford to buy it, 'it will be removed from app stores, won't receive any updates and wither away'.

This isn't related to trolling/the Online Safety Act, but could be an indication as to how our Government will attempt to block
apps that don't comply with the Act.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c87zp82247yo

A Bill requiring this has been passed and is to be passed to President Biden to sign.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Uptake of vpn by tik tok users in the USA to follow :dunce:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

People who inhabit tech-minded forums like this one tend not to realise how few people in the wider world will instinctively reach for a tech solution like that. Sure there will be more than a few, but not nearly enough to make the difference. Tik Tok will be dead in the USA.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I suppose that depends on how well tiktok enlighted their US users about the option, while they still can.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

If someone uses a VPN to make it look like they're in another country, will they see a different app store?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Not ordinarily. They’d also need to have registered their account for that app store in another country.

That said, you can install apps from anywhere on an Android device easy enough by not using the Google store.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Thanks, I have Android & if it's not on the app store it warns you that it may contain a virus.

The beginning of this programme talks about how children as young as 7 are being tricked into sending sexual pictured and within seconds they are posted onto child abuse websites. They say that the Online Safety Act won't stop this on it's own, but it will help:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001yj9s

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Not sure if you're still talking about TikTok here. The link doesn't go anywhere either.

I thought TikTok has a zero nudity policy so not sure of your point without the proper links. But from what info I've read on FB it does get abused with weirdo's using breast feeding as an excuse to get their tits out. Very odd but there you go.

As for kids as young as 7, sending pics.. Well, when I was 7 I just wanted to play with my toy car. Goes to show just how backwards everything's gone if it is true.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It “may” doesn’t mean it does, so someone who adequately informs themselves can ensure they are downloading the exact same installer as the Google Play store in another country.

How does the Online Safety Act “help”. These are already crimes.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Do you believe every ad you see:confused:. Plenty of reasonable priced protection out in the real world . Vpn , malware, and viruses. Better to be safe than sorry

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I think it's a pop up warning from my phone as opposed to an ad. Even anti virus services can miss some viruses, which would worry me.

Tik tok was included , but other sites were mentioned too.

Paedophiles trick children into sending pics that give them sexual gratification by pretending that they are playing a game. If they don't go far enough for their needs, they use deep fake technology to make it appear that they have. Some children from perfectly innocent material have been used to create child pornography too.

Just checked the link and it works for me on Chrome. If you can't get it to work I can find a link to where it came from.

She said that the Online Safety Act will help because website owners are now required to proactively flag up and take down innapropriate/illegal material and not just rely on people reporting it (but when they do, this must also be acted upon).

.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

An alert has gone out to teachers. There has been a recent rise in 'sextortion' cases.

Believed to be originating from abroad, mainly Africa, these people catfish people with nude pictures to get them to send theirs back. When they do, they threaten to send these pictures to their friends, family, work colleagues, neighbours etc unless more pictures are sent or a sum of money.

All ages and genders are affected, but most at risk are boys aged 14 to 18:
https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov....out-sextortion

It wouldn't surprise me if this was the method used to get that MP to disclose the personal numbers of other MP's.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I saw this on the news this morning and it's worrying as i have grandkids, How would the Online Safety Bill stop this considering the perpetrators are in Africa.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Simple, it wouldn't

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What are they doing that wasnt already illegal anyway ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Indeed it has no teeth if the perpetrators are abroad and it will do NOTHING to stop it. It would be interesting to see how much of this does indeed come from abroad compared with the UK.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-ne...-under-threes/

I'll believe it when it happens. Totally unenforenceable.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

They are on another planet if they think they can enforce that.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

They might deploy the Orwellian idea of the TV watching viewers, instead of just viewers watching it.

Webcam technology could actually allow this to be done in contemporary France to check up on families with children ��

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

How would even allow a camera on their TV? Noone would be a TV just because of that.

It's not realistic to have that work in anyway. Also if they tried it. People would just cover up any camera.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It sounds like fantasy land to me. Lets face it people kicked off when it came out that Amazon Alexa and Google home mini's were recording conversations. There is no way people will allow webcams to be fitted to Tv's recording every thing they do. The company's controlling them would see it as a cash cow from selling the data to advertisers. Again it will never happen but if they tried it with me then a bit of tape will soon cure that problem :).

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It was a joke...

Not sure why the emojis at the end didn't appear correctly.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Considering the amount of rubbish surrounding the Online Safety Bill any fantasies could be considered and put forward. For instance the idea the Online Safety Bill would stop children from being targeted has already shown it will not work when it was disclosed that attacks have been perpetrated at UK children from Africa. It has no teeth if the attacks are from outside the country. What Orwellian fantasises will they create to cover that issue ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You didnt use forum smilies. Phone emojis wont work.

As to webcams, you just cover them with a bit of tape. ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Ahhh, that explains it.

---------- Post added at 03:30 ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 ----------


---------- Post added at 03:35 ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 ----------

I'm not aware that there have been any Orwellian fantasies put forward by France or the UK. It was simply a joke.

If a country became so strict with it's citizens as to make them use a webcam to see if under 3's were watching the television (not that I think that France would do this) then covering up the webcam would probably result in a visit by the sectet police!

---------- Post added at 03:57 ---------- Previous post was at 03:35 ----------

The Online Safety Act dictates that search engines, messaging services, video sharing platforms and sites that have user generated content are required to have safeguards to protect children from extremist & terrorist content. Fines of up
18 million pounds can be levied on those who fail to do so.

Dr Moses Ashafe from Ofcom is a Principle Officer overseeing online hate and terrorism.said that they will have much more resources next year to disrupt or block services if needs be.

This programme says that websites have been given access to key phrases in order to flag up innapropriate material.

It also says that a significant number of people who post such material are neuro diverse eg autism.

I think that those who post inappropriate things on the internet as a result of neuro divergence should be offered help as opposed to being punished for it.

If not, it would be akin to charging someone with mobility problems for causing an obstruction!!


https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001yqr8

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Can anyone take responsibility for their own actions today? Always blaming someone or something else apart from themselves.

Maybe the neuro diverse need their own set of rules and be more limited / monitored in their use of the internet?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Or something more extreme but dare say what here:erm:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Some people are unable to take responsibility for their actions, but they cannot be allowed to troll people or post innapropriate things.

One answer could be to have a moderate check their posts before it goes live on any site??

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

All I see are snowflakes. If "you" don't react then they will get fed up.Or you could just not read them.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Ok and who trains and pays the moderators for their time. ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And around and around we go. Wish I could follow my own advice :confused:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Most sites are run by private individuals and the moderators are volunteers who give their time freely to ensure the smooth running of the site.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

… indeed. And we don’t pre-moderate for various reasons including the fact that the workload would be too great for volunteers to be expected to bear.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Not to mention it woud be a colossal waste of time since 99.9% of posts dont need it.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

To be honest it would kill a lot of forums, who could be arsed waiting for a post to be checked in a quick fire thread.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It's bad enough on some Facebook groups that are set to mod check. I wait 4 days for a post to be made public recently. The moment had passed for the thing I was posting about.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I didn't mean for every post, I meant for those identified as neuro diverse who has previously made innapropriate comments.

This would satisfy both the Online Safety Act & the Equality Act.

---------- Post added at 21:44 ---------- Previous post was at 21:42 ----------

Try telling this to the families of people that have self harmed or killed themselves (including children) because of online bullying, harrassment, trolling etc.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

How does one differentiate someone self identifying as neurodiverse from someone who is just an asshole?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Just a brilliant answer, Mike drop. If I had any idea how post giffs on here, it would Be the Leonardo hand clap one.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The profit hungry websites. To be fair, more moderators have been taken on by the likes of Facebook etc.

---------- Post added at 01:03 ---------- Previous post was at 00:59 ----------

Those who are found to have already been diagnosed or subsequently found to be neuro diverse would be able to provide proof from medical professionals as a defence should they find themselves in trouble for making inappropriate posts.

Action of some sort would still be needed to prevent them continuing to do this.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

No two brains work the same, so technically everyone is "neurodiverse".

Seems like just another "buzzword" used by people to excuse them being an asshole.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Like so many other words , titles , and so called problems that snowflakes have today they really need to get a grip. :shocked:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Well I suppose if you make too many inappropriate comments regardless of being neurodiverse or not, you'd get warnings first probably and then mostly likely end up being banned from such site(s). Or would that kind of action be discriminate towards such people?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It's group think, no one is allowed to be an individual anymore. You must be allocated into a group and then subset of that group.

Then we can work out which group is the oppressor and which group is the oppressed.

The oppressed can then claim victimhood and, ironically, status.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And is Paul meant to review all of the medical evidence provided for this site? Or pay someone? Is there a right to appeal for site administrators (who to? And at what cost?).

Totally unworkable. A data protection nightmare too.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/healt...neurodivergent

Neurodiversity is a word used to explain the unique ways people's brains work. While everyone's brain develops similarly, no two brains function just alike. Being neurodivergent means having a brain that works differently from the average or “neurotypical” person.2 Jun 2022

---------- Post added at 11:24 ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 ----------

I can't believe that you actually think that people that are born on the autistic spectrum, that people involved in an accident that injures their brain, people that have had a stroke, people that develop dementia just need to get a grip because
they are 'snowflakes'?

For goodness sake, think about what you're saying.

---------- Post added at 11:34 ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 ----------

Website owners have to comply with the Online Safety Act and the Equality Act. They cannot be accused of disability discrimination if they have not been made aware that a person is disabled, so it's in a everybodys interest for any issues to be made known to then in order for adjustments'etc to be made to take account of their disability.

Perhaps a question regarding this could be asked at the sign up stage??

If what they have posted becomes a legal matter (and they have chosen or been unable to notify the website by the very nature of their cindition) it may not transpire that they are neurodiverse until late in the day if this is to be used as a defence.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

That's not what he was saying at all.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

How website owners manage their affairs is down to them, but for their own sake it would be advisable for them to satisfy themselves that they are being compliant with the law as the penalties for not doing so can ultimately lead to imprisonment. I guess that this is why Facebook have taken on more moderators.

@peanut Sorry, I omitted to say that one of the problems has been that websites weren't taking down inappropriate posts in a timely manner or (frequently) at all.

At one point facebook sacked a load of moderators, I assume to increase their profits. Now that the owners could face sanctions for not running their business in a fit & proper manner, more moderators have been taken on.

---------- Post added at 11:49 ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 ----------

I hope not. What do you think itshim meant when he said what he said? Ironically, because of my own cognitive issues, I can sometimes misunderstand things.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

So you can be a pain in the backside and there's nothing anyone can do about it?? If you get banned you can take action and claim discrimination is that right?

What if you have to declare at sign up (never going to happen), and then you get refused, what rights do site owners have?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Assuming you're referring to a neuro diverse person it all depends on a variety of factors. To correct you, although some disabled people may appear to be being a deliberate PITA, this is not the case for the individual themselves.

For example, people with dementia may ask a question, receive an answer and go on to ask the very same question 30 times more. This isn't being done to be annoying (even if it comes across as being so), nor is it being done on purpose, it's because their brain is dying and not functioning correctly as it does so.

Those who work in dementia care homes understand & accept this as part of the condition.

Refusal to supply goods & services based on an individuals protected status would be unlawful. If refusal is based on any other reason then it may not be.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It's also true of relatives and people that live with dementia everyday.