Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You 'don't think'? Rather than certainly not etc. Strange or an odd way to think don't you agree?

If other people think that you're obsessive or weird in your thinking, don't you consider that you might be true?

I see you didn't answer or quote mrmistoffelees reply. I'd like to understand what you think about his post. My wife goes into town often and she mentions the latest fashion for the younger generation that these days is that they wear next to nothing and this is the younger teens. I find it a bit mad but the last thing I'd be thinking is what peado's will be thinking.

So why the obsession? Do you have children? It seems you want to ban everything that goes against your views, so there must be a reason.

As for the mobile phones, it's not all down to the dangerous content of the internet, it's the distractions, addictions, and the pressures that come with social media. I don't disagree that mobile phones are a bane nor that social media is a problem for mental health side of things. But we're in a digital age where there's really not a lot you can now do about it. Limit? Yes, ban? No.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

---------- Post added at 10:45 ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 ----------

There is no absolute way to protect ANYONE on the internet all of the time.To have such protection then the WWW should NEVER have been set up in the first place.

Question! Why was the WWW actually set up?For whose benefit?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

No matter what someone is wearing, if they are attacked or abused it is the fault of the perpetrator and nobody else.

However, for their own safety, people should try to take steps to keep themselves safe eg on a hot summers night a woman would be ill advised to go for a walk on her own in a secluded spot, but if she did & was subsequently attacked, the attacker is at fault for attacking, not her for wearing a bikini.

A lot of people are calling for those under 14 to not have smartphones, so it's interesting (for the reasons that you gave) that these MP's think that it should relate to those under 16.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

So children over the age of 13 won't be able to use apple pay (etc) or use e-tickets for bus travel if they ban mobile phones.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

"I'm keen not the blame the victim, but if only the victim had acted differently this may not have happened"

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

To be fair, there is a % of personal responsibility. Plenty of places me, a 6’ 4” man, wouldn’t walk around at night by myself, and if I did, and got set upon, it would be my own stupid fault.

Ideally, we wouldn’t live in such a world, but we do.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I agree with what you are saying I was just pointing out the contradictory bit of the bit in bold.

Every day almost everyone engages in risk evaluation/mitigation as part of their own personal responsibility on a whole range of scenarios. Even crossing the road, driving a car., etc. People do these things and get hurt or worse regularly yet we don't set out to ban them. We give people instructions, tools and parameters within which we believe safety increases.

Similarly, there's streets/areas I wouldn't go into in daylight. :D

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

This mother is asking for people to sign her petition to require social media companies to pass over information about her 14 yesr old son who committed suicide:

https://news.sky.com/story/mother-of...story-13142846

Closes 30 May.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I can't disagree, she should have the right to answers. But sadly sometimes and in most cases there won't be.

I didn't know you had to be in a 'suicidal mood' to be suicidal. Strange that.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Parents need to take responsibility and set the appropriate setting on their kids phones, most have a kids mode function.


You just cant blame facebook etc.


But how do I prove I'm over 18, I don't want to give these sites my Credit?debit card info, and what about those who don't have a driving licence or passport?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Very true and you rise a real question

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

IIRC Sir Tim Bernads-Lee set it up to allow institutions to transfer data, then became open to the world, it's changed a lot from the old BBS.


On a side note if Sir Tim charges 10p every time you used the web I read he would have made something like £250,000,000 a day, but he gave it for free

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

In this case the family are blaming the TikTok blackout challenge. I’m the absence of conclusive proof the coroner made a judgement “on balance of probabilities” in favour of misadventure.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The Internet started a bit before the WWW - the WWW evolved from ARPANET.

The phrase "internet" was first used around 1983, and ‘WWW" around 1989.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/ARP...packet-of-data

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Ah right makes sense now, a bit like the 'Archie Battersbee's' case. They blamed it on something like that as well, but after a forensic search of his phone and internet use they didn't find anything at all. Something certainly wasn't right with that case at all.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It’s a bit of a tightrope I think. Families will, sadly, always be in denial about what they missed, how didn’t they not know etc. So blaming someone else - or social media - is a natural part of this denial process. This makes it difficult to test motive.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Very true, but then his mother didn't stop but goes on and be a part of the 11 parents that blames social media for the death of their child. Yet there was no evidence or proof to say social media or Tik Tok in this case was to blame. Which is quite odd considering the verdict.

It is certain cases that it does prove that there's more to it than just social media or the internet. But the hype around using this reason does makes it easy to use and blame, but can also hide the real truths.

Even so, if a child is looking or searching for self harming content etc. Then there must be some other problems there to begin with.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

This programme looks at how attempts will be made by the Olympics to tackle online abuse of athletes in both written form, the use of emojies and manipulated images. AI will be used to combat online abuse & online violence by scanning the Internet and getting the posts removed or to take legal action. One in six children are said to have been subject to online bullying:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct5wm4

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Anyone who wishes to sign this petition will have to do so before 0.01 on Thursday.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/661407

All petitions will close at 00.01am on Thursday 30 May.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It's reached over 100k so will be looked at.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...l-media-access

Just to add to my other post I see that the link also mention the mother of Archie, and states 'possibly'.

Also, if they forensically looked into Archies online history (but found nothing), why can't they look into Jools Sweeney's online history too?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Thanks and yes, you make a good point.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

They call it social media, yet 79% of young people describe themselves as lonely:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001zxds

From just past halfway through.

---------- Post added at 22:00 ---------- Previous post was at 21:55 ----------

It's not just predators, trolls & bullies that target children. Scammers actively target them too:

https://www.itv.com/watch/lorraine/1a9360

The feature is approximately halfway through.

---------- Post added at 22:40 ---------- Previous post was at 22:00 ----------

It's not just predators, trolls & bullies that target children. Scammers actively target them too:

https://www.itv.com/watch/lorraine/1a9360

The feature is approximately halfway through.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

One headmaster in Notting Hill has adopted an idea for keeping pupils in years 7 & 8 off their smartphones. They start school at 7:15am and don't finish until
6:15pm. As well as extra lesson time, they also take part in extra activities like playing football. I imagine that this is also extremely helpful to working parents too.

Instead of paying to provide childcare for working parents (which the Government is finding it impossibleto provide), perhaps it would be better to utilise existing schools & put taxpayers money into funding longer schooldays for all children?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001zxj6

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

That is an insane length of school day. Kids will be knackered.things like football are already part of regular school time lessons.

Also how does an 11 hour day ensure they stay off their phones? They'll still have access at break and lunch times.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It's not 11 hours of learning time! If you added up the length of a normal schoolday to the time devoted to homework and unsupervised play after school, it's probably about the same.

I suppose they will have either banned them from bringing smartphones to school or immediately confiscate them and return them at the end of the school fay.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Exactly, how are they going to concentrate for that long, they might be there that long but they won't be productive or constructive

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

All that just to stop them using a phone. You can't make it up.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

They won't be expected to concentrate and be in learning mode the whole time.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

They say comedy is dead, it's not it has just been renamed as the "Online Safety Bill"

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It's now an Act of Parliament.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

They made comedy an act of parliament Excellent :D

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

tbf, there are a bunch of clowns in power at the moment…

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

An Ofcom survey has found that 42 million people have received a communication trying to scam them out of money and that 25% of these resulted in people losing money as a result.

For details on how to protect yourself and how the Online Safety Act may be able to help:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001zy6v

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And there's one born every minute...

Seriously, most of the 'Online Safety Act' could or should be the responsibility of parents, school and the person. Education should be top priority (regardless of age) and not just push blame on to others such as social media etc.

Give your bank details over the phone, then expect to get scammed. Send a dick pic expect it to be shared. Watch porn online then expect your child (or even adults) to have a warped view of what is acceptable or what is normal (what is normal)?. All could be avoided with the right information and proper education. Pushing the blame elsewhere isn't right which is all what this act does.

The problem is now young adults / parents are affected just as much as children. But they are the ones that will set the example. It's not just children that now need protecting or to be educated.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

We all have a part to play where this is possible, by this I mean that some people are more vulnerable to scammers etc by reasons of things like age, disability, mental health issues etc. It's often the case that people think that everyone else has the same skills & capabilities of themselves, which is not the case.

A voluntary code of practice by website owners to protect vulnerable people was mostly ignored by them, so the law has had to step in to require them to protect our most vulnerable instead of them just concentrating on how much money they can make.

Your last paragraph and comment about education are both excellent points.

---------- Post added at 23:46 ---------- Previous post was at 23:22 ----------

A group of schools in Southwark are to introduce a collective principal regarding smartphones from September. This is based on a programme of education rather than an outright ban.

Phones are sometimes permitted, for example for disabled children, but if anyone is found to be using one for no good reason it will be confiscated. One child who needed access to the internet due to health concerns started using a smartwstch. To get the phone back a parent will have to come and collect it so that a dialogue can be opened.

Parents can then be informed about it causing any interruption to learning and a discussion can be had as to whether the child actually needs the smartphone, whether it should be returned to them or of a basic non smartphone would be more appropriate.

They did this after concerns about childrens health from using smartphones particularly in respect of social media.
Concerns included mental health issues, body image problems, cyber bullying, grooming, access to and viewing of innapropriate content, problems with the attention span of young people and the fact that social media is purposely engineered & designed to cause repeated engagement. The smartphones themselves as a device have been known to give rise to criminal activity.

They feel that the best way to stop young people from using social media is for staff & pupils to collaborate to enable them to make the choice not to engage with it until they are older.

It's not going to be an outright ban, though obviously pupils won't be able to start surfing the Internet during lessons.

An interview with one of the heads of one of the participating schools can be heard from about 0:15:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001zw50

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It would be a very short discussion here - they would be told in no uncertain terms its none of their business whether MY child has a smartphone.


Why should "young people" be stopped from using social media ?
Just because a small number cant cope, doesnt mean the rest should stop.
Some children cant behave properly in a resaurant, it doesnt mean all children should be banned from them.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The head said that she would explain the growing evidence that smartphones and social media are harmful to children. Parents would be free to ignore this advice outside of school.

They should not ignore it,its very real and scary!!

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Would you care to explain why, from your own point of view?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

If such evidence genuinely does exist I’d certainly like to see it. My son had had my old iPhone 7 for a while and he’s pretty well adjusted.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

There is a lot of 'evidence' out there. Mainly from El Gov etc based on the impact and evidence of a minority that are affected. So basically the nut and a sledgehammer approach for everyone else due to the few. Which is why it's stupid and most are against it.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

There's plenty of archive resources for you to peruse in this thread or you can search online.

Incidents range from mental health problems to children being bullied/harrassed/trolled to the point of suicide.

I'm surprised that you need evidence given your involvement with catching paedophiles/hebephiles who operate primarily from online contact to the child's smartphone.

---------- Post added at 19:36 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------

It's correct to say that most on here appear to be against more controls over the use of smartphones by children, but this is not my experience in the wider world or that of the regulator.

Evidence has been provided from allsorts of adults & children. I'm not aware of any Government involvement apart from the introduction of the Online Safety Act, the establishment of Ofcom as the regulator and statements from individual or groups of MP's.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

All of these things predate smartphones, and the internet. Kids are bad, maybe we should do away with them?

Yes and alot get dissiness more now than they did because of all this crap in the air!

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Do you not have Bacofoil (aluminium) foil in America ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I’ve had a look and seen plenty of opinions, but nothing that constitutes ‘evidence’

You’re only surprised because you’re not aware of the methods used.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The paedophile hunting groups that I've seen/spoken to tend to use decoys who pretend to be under age or involve real children. They then wait for innapropriate contact from adults and take it from there..

Does your group do things differently?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

That’s about 20% of what hunting teams do

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

AIUI there are four main roles involved. Decoys who pretend to be under age, researchers who find out all about the life of the perpetrators, the hunters who go to visit the perpetrators to challenge them about their behaviour and security in case things turn nasty.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Kruger-Dunning effect again. There’s a hell of a lot more involved than you know. Watching a couple of videos of teams does not give you any legitimate insight.

Way off topic too.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Feel free to provide more insight if you wish, adults using the internet to groom children isn't off topic at all. Ofcom are prioritising their use of the Online Safety Act to protect children.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Asking what methods hunting groups use *is* off topic. And not something I’m going to discuss in public. If as you claim you speak to hunter teams and they choose to tell you their methods then I’d describe them as unprofessional at best, and dangerous at worst.

Your reasons for wanting to know how we work are of course your own.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It most certainly is waaaay off topic.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I'd like to draw the attention of those who have children with a smartphone, particularly boys, to an activity labelled sextortion which has resulted in suicides.This is a type of blackmail where threats are made to share intimate pictures of them unless they meet their demands for either money or more pictures. The usual platforms are Instagram or Snapchat and predominantly come from Nigeria. Manuals & scripts are being shared throughout Nigeria telling people how to carry out these crimes.

Whilst it's difficult to obtain accurate figures, because there's a massive amount of underreporting due to embarrassment and shame, the US had 27,000 cases last
year, resulting in 27 deaths.

One young man, Jordan, ended his own life just 6 hours after being targeted. He sent them some money, but they said it wasn't enough. After having no more money to send, he then pleaded with them not to share the pictures or he would probably kill himself.

The response was to say good,do it now or we'll force you to do it and, tragically, he did.

The advice to children is to never accept friend requests from someone you don't know, never let people take you off platform, don't pay them any money, block them and inform your parents or a trusted adult, however difficult this might be.

The BBC's Cyber Correspondent, Joe Tidy, says that Teachers have been alerted and asked to warn pupils about this.

Regularly checking children's devices is often the best way to keep children safe

From about 0:35:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001zvvt

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Just look at the stories from Dan Lobb and Joel Dommett. Moral of the story is.... Never ever send a dick pic.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

:Yikes:

Dan Lobb sent a dick pic, what was Lobb on

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Totally agree, but children lack the wisdom & maturity to think about the possible consequences, which is why I (and others) are keen to get this information out as far and wide as possible.

---------- Post added at 16:27 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------

Teachers say that innapropriate content and too much screen time on mobile phones is damaging the communication skills and mental health of children.

If you wish to you can gain some insight into how teachers are using lessons to teach children how to remain safe here in the first report of this news bulletin:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00205ks

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Fleetwood Enforcers have provided a free & anonymous number for anyone to call who is having innapropriate sexual thoughts about people under 16 or is speaking sexually to them. For help please call:

0808 1000 900

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

A new low for CF... I'm really starting to worry about you now. :erm:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Why??

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You maybe just maybe seem to be just a teeny weeny little bit obsessed with the subject.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Seriously?wTH are you posting that in here for?
How is that in any way related to the actual topic under discussion.

Very weird :erm:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

For the record, the phone system is not anonymous, digital calls can be traced quite easily.

How about getting back to the topic, I fail to see how that post is usedful to anyone on this forum.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The Online Safety Act has given Ofcom the power to protect vulnerable people from harm and has rightly focused on children first.

We all have a duty/responsibility to protect children from harm and prevention is better than cure, so i'm really pleased that Fleetwood Enforcers are publicising Stop It Now.

I wouldn't say i'm obsessed with the subject, though it is fair to say that it's a subject close to my heart for reasons i'd rather not go into.

---------- Post added at 02:02 ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 ----------

Paedophiles/Hebophiles exist in all walks of life and are obviously not going to publicise their private thoughts about this.

I think that the 'anonymous' promise is in relation to the information they give to the call handler.

---------- Post added at 02:48 ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 ----------

This is just starting. I'm afraid I'll have to listen to it tomorrow as i'm really tired, but it looks like Ireland is also becoming concerned about young people & their smartphone use.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct5mss

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

This excellent series that looks at all matters concerning the mind today looked at the impact of internet addiction on teenage brains.

From about halfway through:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002020d

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I would

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

So would I

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

:omg: That is more than an obsession

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Case proven.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The problem is that the people drafting and voting on this legislation are still thinking that they are dealing with the content of the top shelf at the local newsagents. :rolleyes:

Idiots.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The situation with excessive use of smartphones also affects children in different ways according to one headmaster who wants to parents to stop using them at the school gates.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/arti...20the%20answer.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Yeah that ain't gonna happen. Can't tell grown adults what to do at the school gets.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Like that's going to happen.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

None of this has anything to do with the "Online Safety Bill". Get back to the topic.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Trust me the first teacher or headmaster who asks me to stop using my phone at the school gates when i drop of my grandkids will find out the hard way that he or she has no legal right to do so and would learn a few new choice words. There is a dictatorship evolving by a group of people who seems to want to control everything they do not like and are using the online comedy bill to force it through. It really is a fully fledged obsession.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

TBH I think it up to parent to oversee what their kids get up to online.

There are loads of free apps/programs and support out there, many don't set up kids mode which controls what they can do.

My Sister kids had rules they had to follow and everyday she would ask them for their phone and she would check it.

One day her she couldn't get in to the phone as the password wasn;t recognised, but her daughter said that she changed it as she thought someone saw it and told her what it was, and this was accepted.

At the end of the day parents pay for it so they can take it away.

Even my router allows me to turn of the internet by device/or times.

Perhaps companies should make it simpler for parents.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Your sister had the right idea. In an ideal world all parents would do the same but, unfortunately, they don't and their children need to be protected from paedophiles scammers, trolls etc too.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Not my version of an ideal world by any stretch of the imagination.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Seems like overkill to me, I think they call it helicopter parenting. :erm:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

As a teacher I disagree.I'd rather helicopter parenting than can't be arsed parenting.;)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Fine and/or Prosecute the parents for failing to safeguard their children then.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

If there are no good reasons why action shouldn't be taken, I don't disagree with you.

---------- Post added at 11:46 ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 ----------

Following racist comments last time, as per the FA CEO, Mark Bullingham has said that the Football Association is to provide the funding to aid in the prosecution of individuals who abuse England’s players on social media.

It's good to see organisations being more proactive against trolls.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

But you're still allowed to call them crap, useless and rubbish I take it.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I'd think that they would be more concerned about personal comments than criticism of their football skills, though they could argue that this is libellous.

Same as if someone put a poster in their window saying that the local doctor was crap/rubbish at being a doctor.

To be completely safe, i'd remember the old saying 'If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all'.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Defamation is more than simply saying something unkind to someone. To prove it in court you have to prove that what was printed (libel) or spoken (slander) would tend to lower the reputation of the individual in the opinion of the common man. Even if it does, there are defences in truth, honest opinion and public interest, amongst others.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

To try & cover themselves people could precede their comments with 'In my opinion', though personally I wouldn't risk it myself as the FA & today's footballers (and indeed doctors) have a lot more money than the average person.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Kruger Dunning again.

Simply adding “in my opinion” is no assurance of any protection in such Law.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Nope.

The honest opinion defence fails if you can’t prove that it is your genuine, honest opinion, reasonably held (and that means the contentious opinion, when it was published, must have indicated some reasons why that opinion is held), or if you can’t point to facts that back that opinion up. It’s designed to protect newspaper op-ed writers, not internet trolls.

That said, as a footballer you’re never going to win a libel action against a fan who accuses you of being a donkey on an internet forum because libel has to damage a reputation. That sort of barracking is so commonplace in football fandom that nobody could claim that any one instance of it it made any difference to a footballer’s reputation.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Not for much longer, you'll hurt their feelings and affect their mental health :erm:

---------- Post added at 19:00 ---------- Previous post was at 18:58 ----------

Or as my dad always said , nothing nice to say run away you know you won't keep your mouth shut:D

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Ahh, so making it clear that it's an opinion wouldn't make any difference then.

I suppose it would be difficult for either party to prove one way or the other whether an individual is a bad footballer or not, I mean how could it be measured? Number of goals scored? Number of red cards? The list is endless!

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Fun fact that was brought to my attention today. Disputes used to be resolved by 'Trial By Combat' and it was believed that, if God was with the defendent, he would win.

It was then decided to use the judicial
system to decide such matters, but
Parliament forgot to repeal the earlier law!

Therefore, in 1819 a man demanded the right to have his innocence or guilt decided by Trial By Combat. Because nobody was willing to fight him, he won his case!

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What on earth has that got to do with anything?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

His daily post to keep the thread going :)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It had nothing to do with anything in 1819 either, the wager of battle was designed to see to accused dead, not walk free

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

:tu:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What a pity.:dozey:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The first feature in this programme looks at the research being done to monitor the brains of teenagers with internet addiction:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct5t8n

These studies show that the brains of teenagers are different to teenagers who have a healthy use of the internet.

This programme looks at a group of 5 teenagers who agreed to give up their smartphones for five schooldays. There were some surprising results:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00209dl

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Again what does that have to do with the actual title and topic of the thread?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Writing in the New York Times, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said social media increased the risk that children would experience symptoms of anxiety and depression. He wants people who visit these platforms to be shown a message warning that they are "associated with significant mental health harms for adolescents".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98821dn27lo

---------- Post added at 14:45 ---------- Previous post was at 14:39 ----------

Ofcom and our legislators are concerned about the effect that smartphones & social media are having on children. Children are the priority of Ofcom as the Online Safety Act takes effect. They are looking at the various reports & evidence that are being brought to their attention to help them decide what to do next regarding the problems associated with social media and the excessive time spent on the internet.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

But that is not related to an online safety bill?

Excessive use is totally different.