Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36187850)

No, you made no such distinction ..

No one here is a mind reader, if you mean "social media sites" then you need to say so.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36187855)

Social media sites are just an example.
These are the definitions.
That would include this and so many other harmless forums and websites.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36187855)

Social media sites are just an example.
These are the definitions.
That would include this and so many other harmless forums and websites.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36187874)

With hindsight I probably should have done, but I sometimes make mistakes or there are oversights because, as you know, I am neuro diverse.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36188685)

The definitions from my understanding are also wide sweeping, one of the football forums I’m on is seriously considering closing down their forums because of the severe amount of work required and cost/time required to moderate.

Meanwhile the massive social media providers will get away with it

---------- Post added at 16:48 ---------- Previous post was at 16:46 ----------


Guess censorship is going to need being redefined . However whom will check the censor, and will they be prosecuted if the courts decides they missed something, or is it only the posters that will be in the soup ?

Are you ? You’ve never mentioned it mind you……

Isn’t that what your facilitators are there for ?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36189174)

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36189174)

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 36189177)

What this government says and what it does are completely different. You can bet they will change their tune over the next year as more and more big company's start to look elsewhere.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 36189181)

The UK doesn't look like it has much clout to 'negotiate' anything just lately. I'm sure it'll either be watered down or kicked into the long grass. Or it'll go ahead and and we'd all be penalised due to the draconian rules to help the very small minority snowflakes.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36189185)

The Government tech boss said on this mornings 'Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg' that it was a privilege and not a right for websites to do business with the UK and that to do so, they must follow our rules.

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:15 ----------



Would you call the children who have committed suicide as a result of harrassment/abuse/bullying/malicious etc posts 'snowflakes'?

Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly took her own life because of this, wants the existing measures to primarily protect children and vulnerable people to be strengthened.

Unless other serious laws were broken, you and others
wouldn't be penalised as penalties will be directed at website owners/managers.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 36189187)

I can't really comment on specific people. I don't think I can just blame the internet. Parents do have a responsibility as well as the child/person/user. These days it's all about blaming everyone and everything else other than themselves or the actual root causes.

Children today are just not equipped to handle life stresses these days.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36189185)

Would you call the children who have committed suicide as a result of harrassment/abuse/bullying/malicious etc posts 'snowflakes'?

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36189205)

Bullying has always existed.
You seem to keep forgrtting this.
Real bullying, not words on the internet.

There is a saying that come to mind, that still applies.
"Sticks & stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me".

No one is forced to read internet "posts".
99% of those that do are still alive, they dont go killing themselves.


I dont. So there you go, we cancel each other out. ;)

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36189223)

That saying is the most inaccurate saying ever. Bullying/harrassment can cause PTSD. anxiety, depression etc. Sexually abusive posts often leads to drug/drink abuse or mental health problems when the child becomes an adult.

The last Government took out the 'legal, but harmful' clause for adults (it still applies to children) and there are calls for it to be put back in.

Don't forget that children don't have the mental capacity to deal with all this.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36189223)

That saying is the most inaccurate saying ever.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36189223)

The last Government took out the 'legal, but harmful' clause for adults (it still applies to children) and there are calls for it to be put back in.