Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Harm caused by the internet, howsoever it's caused, is all part of the same issue.

I find it odd that you've taken it upon yourself to try and police this particular thread, particularly when admin have said in the past that it is not for members to decide what is and isn't on or off topic and that posts shouldn't be reported for this.

Your time would be much better spent discussing ways to protect children from harm or putting forward your views about any suggestions or ideas put forward by experts, parents, elected representatives etc.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

My time is my own do do as a so wish.

However if you want my response then just take all smart phones away from under 16s and make social media require proof of age with some sort of online passport system. Or just block kids from accessing those sites at all.

If they aren't trusted to make informed decisions before certain ages, much liking drinking, gambling, smoking or voting, then why should they be allowed to access to places that may contain things 'harmful' to them. :angel:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Perhaps a large cage with a lot of woodshavings a water bowl and natural food with timer for the lights and how about a exercise wheel . That should do the job:rolleyes:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

No it isnt.

You are not staff here either, so stop trying to backseat moderate.

You were told here to keep on topic [last week], do so, or action will be taken.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Following considerations requested by various parties to the previous Government and the new Government, the King's Speech is expected to announce a strengthening of the Online Safety Act.

One such change involves cases where bereaved parents demand access to data to help them understand what their child was looking at before taking their own lives.

At the moment they don't have a legal right to this information and website owners have responded by being deliberately awkward and protracting matters, outright refusing the request altogether or even telling them that the data has been deleted.

No indication has been made that a duty of candour on website owners will be required as requested. If it isn't pressure will continue to be put on legislators by the various individuals and groups fighting for a safer Internet.

This would make it an offence for website owners to impede, frustrate or delay, for example, a coroners investigation.

At the moment the attitude seems to be that of, we don't have to help, so we won't and if we do decide to, we'll make it as difficult as we possibly can.

No doubt they will complain about more regulation being imposed on them, but this could have been avoided had they had a professional & decent attitude and been humane towards those who have already suffered enough.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I wondered when this would get updated now we have a new government.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The Mayor of London has described the Online Safety Act as 'Not fit for purpose in some areas'. I'm assuming that he means the part that social media has played in the recent riots.

There was an interesting discussion last night about this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0021qqc

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Interesting to see action being taken by the ICO as part of their Protecting children's privacy online strategy

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/med...acy-practices/

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

That is good news joglynne.

A review is to take place to decide what to do about extreme misogyny, Islamic extremism and far right extremism and the Online Safety Act used to prevent the spread of hateful and harmful views online.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Hmm, who decides what is/are "hateful and harmful views" ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It won't be a man ,a conservative or a muslim ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Two tier Kier.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

He doesn't know what a woman is so he's no good for sorting out misogyny, and what about the man haters are they doing anything about that:shocked:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Whilst misandry does exist too, i'm not aware of any extreme views being posted online such as the misogyny from the likes of Andrew Tate.

---------- Post added at 17:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:25 ----------

Ultimately it'll be Ofcom.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Where - in the Act - are Ofcom delegated such authority?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The obvious way forward is to be a polite misogynist.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I heard this today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00224s9

It explained why it's believed that misogyny and terrorism are connected.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I will give this a listen, but probably not until after the weekend.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Pavel Durov, the owner of Telegram (a messaging platform that is encrypted at both ends), has been arrested in France for failing to co-operate with the authorities in their efforts to find criminals, including paedophiles, who use his platform to communicate with each other.

I wonder if the Online Safety Act (and similar legislation introduced by other countries) will be used in a similar way towards websites owners, some whom have also said that they will not allow the authorities access to the encrypted messages sent over their platforms?

Elon Musk is said to 'be worried' about this development.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. I'm sure that Governments (including our own) will be watching very closely as it's basically a test to see who is in control, platform owners or Government.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The Information Commissioner has welcomed a decision by Instagram to take steps to try and protect young people:

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/med...teen-accounts/

It appears that EU & UK egislation is having an impact, even before the latter is properly in force.

Will website owners relent on not giving access to encrypted messages following the Huw Edwards Court case? It transpired that they know he interacted with another paedophile on other platforms, but that the details couldn't be recovered. If they had of been able to, maybe the outcome would have been more than a 6 months suspended sentence.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Unlikely, and I certainly hope they dont, thats the whole point of encryption.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I highly doubt the Huw Edwards case will make a scrap of difference to the tech companies refusal to hand over encryption keys. After all, the English justice system has made clear it views the case as being at the very low end of this sort of offending.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Any sex crime involving children is despicable and no sentence will ever feel long enough for many people, especially victims of such crimes.

I openly (and wrongly) assumed there was more being made of this than it was, with most people being reactionary in their approach to the whole thing when it first came out that he'd been involved in something foolish.

It's absolutely right that simply viewing category A, B or C photos are not 'victimless' offences as if the images already existing equates to the crime already having been committed in he past, when they were taken.

In Law, mitigating circumstances can influence a person's behaviour, whether we like it or not.

In no way am I suggesting it excuses anything.

However, it's also well-known to judges and magistrates that all kinds of attempts are often made to garner sympathy for the defendant.

Were Edwards' mit-circs genuine? Yes, I mostly think they were.

But he could at any time have broken off contact with the Welsh guy who sent him stuff. He could have instantly deleted anything questionable that showed up on his phone. Granted he said (words to the effect of) "don't send anything underage", but why not "don't send anything that could be mistaken or misconstrued for underage".

For the purposes of context, for a moment let's remove the fact he had underage material on his phone. Let's just say he was receiving sexual images of clearly-adult women. He's doing nothing illegal then. Morally it could be argued he's cheating on his wife but that's a different story.

However, there was an underage, or at least implied aspect to his actions.

Given the fact he wasn't distributing them, specifically asking for them, or making/taking the photos/videos himself, for a first-time offender who may well have depression or similar mental health issues, his sentence is pretty much standard for what he did.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Very much so … and there’s another thread for discussing all of that in detail. ;)

However, rightly or wrongly, he has been judged a low-level offender and therefore, nothing so far having persuaded tech giants to hand over encryption keys to their messaging apps, the Huw Edwards case is spectacularly unlikely to make any difference at all.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I’m not allowed on that……..no idea why.

But strange that we live in a society where calling somebody a paedophile can get you a longer sentence, than actually being a paedophile.


And no, none of Edwards “mitigating” circumstances cut any mustard.

He was a person in a position of power over someone in the initial case and just an outright paedo in the one that followed. No better than Saville, Harris or Hall. He deserved jail time and the biggest crime is he didn’t get it.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Tramadol for my rotator-cuff pain. Fantastic for dealing with the aches, not so good with posting my thoughts in the right thread :erm:

But you guys AS ADMINS Paul,dont ya have to tell someone who someone is if they ask??

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

BBC 6PM news reporting that they have traced a Nazi who was instrumental in causing the summer riots:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8l9gpp8yro

In response, the Government said it is to 'Work at pace to implement the Online Safety Act', this will give them the power to force websites to remove innapropriate content.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Importantly, he lives in Finland. Can we extradite him?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

According to this, we can. A new arrangement has had to be put in place because of Brexit:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradit...ses-and-review

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Following a warning from Ofcom earlier this year, Instagram have been the first website to put in place measures to help to preven sextortion:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdd4vn6p601o

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Great idea , let's waste pot loads of money .

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

In what way is helping to protect children 'wasting money'?

Which money are you talking about?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

As efforts to protect children continue, from next year websites will be required to assess the risk that their content may be harmful to children.

Steps include filtering out the material or downranking it, so it doesn't appear in children's feeds.

Ofcom chief Dame Melanie Dawes said it was the responsibility of the firms - not parents or children - to make sure people were safe online.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Everyone's into AI and net zero, why can't they take sole responsibility of their actions? Its annoying when its best when it suits you.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I'm not interested in either of them

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Well the way its talked up sure sounds like it's universal. The wind is blowing this way..

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I've managed 68 years without them,i'll let the younger generations handle them :)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I'd love to see the younger generations face when they realise Apple won't be inventing a device that wipes their arse. Normal service will then resume.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

i used to think no one would ever be able to cook as bad as my mrs ,but then they invented pot noodle :shrug:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Ouch! I'm going to seek shelter steering clear of that :shocked:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Bringing him from Finland , need I expand further. :confused: Taxpayers money who else , really you need to think, before posting

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Pot noodle Bombay bad boy…………food of the gods

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You're just not cooking it right. 😂

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Just more bureaucracy that will make little actual difference - apart from costs and wasted time.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What on Earth are you talking about? It's you who needs to be clear about what it is you want to say before posting.

Also, what taxpayers money are you talking about? Ofcom nor Instagram are funded by general taxation, but even if it was, i'm sure that most right thinking people would support initiatives to help to keep children safe online.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You appear to want to charge the guy in Finland, or did I misread your post. Were you thinking that ofcom could do it? Whom do you think pays in the end for any quango. I've news for you. You do :shocked: think about it :dunce:

---------- Post added at 17:34 ---------- Previous post was at 17:32 ----------

Very true , but it keeps the simptons of the world happy :dozey:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Again, what are you talking about?

<removed>

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Please tell were to find the money tree you think funds these organisations is . Clearly you do not think the money comes from taxes that you I and everyone else pays :erm:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Instagram is a private company and Ofcom are funded by the fees that they set.

.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And whom do you think pays Instagram and the like. The tooth fairy ?:rolleyes: Anything that makes money pays tax , agreed. Who do they get the money off. Ego the public( you and l )directly or indirectly . However that is raised it ,in the end comes from us.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Instagram is paid for out of ad revenue

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Various posts edited or removed.

There are no Woke Police on this site, just Admins & Mods.
We have no time for people who want to get "offended" for the sake of it.
If it bothers anyone, you know where the exit is, feel free to leave at any time.

Back to the topic please.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Ad revenue, is paid for by suppliers of a product. This is paid from earnings for that product. That is brought by Joe public, ergo as with all things you pay for it , sales , taxes, all come out of your pocket :shocked: I give up it is really a money tree:p:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Was rather upset after watching the 6pm news. A 26 year old Belfast man befriended girls between 10 and 12 and pretended to be a little girl himself.

Once he'd persuaded them to send indecent pictures, he threatened to send them to their friends & family, unless they sent him more indecent & humiliating photos.

One 12 year old couldn't face what was happening and committed suicide.

The report went on to say that, with the advent of the Online Safety Act, safeguards were now being implemented to try and prevent this from ever happening again.

This is why i'm glad that Instagram etc are finally being made to take the safety of their users seriously. This is not a waste of resources, from wherever they are derived.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You seem to confuse desire with reality.

There is little indication it will succeed, people always find ways around measures.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Which of the measures don't you think will succeed?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

[QUOTE=RichardCoulter;36184881]Any of them.

First they rely on children/teens not lying about their age (newsflash, they do).

Then they actually do very little, one of them is "not receive notifications at night time" - wow, that'll make things so much "safer". They also rely on parent accounts not giving them permissions. Most wont care and just give them what they want (for an easy life) and many kids will just know their parents passwords anyway.

It also relies on parents having accounts at all (many do not) - hows that going to work exactly ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Also AI hasn't helped matters..I'm just thinking that it's going to complicate life in so many ways we haven't discovered yet as it becomes the usual given reason for any issue raised by anyone. Social media is working out how to deal or accept AI.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Very true. A woman posted on Facebook that she 'Could murder a gin and tonic' after a hard day's work that she'd had and was temporarily suspended for making a threat to kill! A human being would have understood that this wasn't a threat to kill somebody, but the Facebook AI did not.

AI is used by them to cut costs as is the outsourcing of the moderation function to poorer places like Africa, where those with few employment prospects do it for $1 an hour!

To be fair, their business model depends on thousands of posts being made per day, so I think it would be unrealistic to expect a human to check every post.

The problem to me seems to be that, when it gets things wrong, it's impossible to contact a human and people are fobbed off with the usual tactics so prevalent today that companies use to bat people away eg useless AI Chatbots.

You might be interested in this programme that covers the interaction between the Online Safety Act, AI and the future of moderation:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0024x4j

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The AI mod algorithm on FB can be a bit useless. I got a 2 days ban for using Nazi and Hitler in a comment on a page where there was discussion around architecture and historic buildings and i talked how much they bombed and destroyed during WWII. AI still has a lot of learning to do.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

All of them:shocked:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Yes, it doesn't seem to understand the concept of context and is still taking everything literally.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I know a lot of people who do that too.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Indeed. I know someone with aspergers and if someone were to say "It's raining cats and dogs outside", he'd go outside looking for cats and dogs, so it must be a symptom of the condition and possibly other neuro diverse conditions too.

I haven't seen you around for some time, I do hope that you are keeping well.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Well if he did it with out a reinforced umbrella or a hard hat, he would not only be on the spectrum, but he’d be an idiot as well.


I call bullshit, to that anecdote. Just because you’re autistic doesn’t make you an idiot, far from it, and that anecdote is an idiotic one.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It depends upon what form and how severe one's autism is. There are many variations.

I'm afraid that I will now have to bring our discussion about this to an end as admin have stated that this one is only to be used for discussion of the Online Safety Act and nothing else.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

As a disorder, not every single person exhibits the exact same 'symptoms. It is different for everyone.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Ofcom research has found that 20% of children aged between 8 and 17 in the UK have lied about their age in order to join sites that aren't meant for them.

This figure has been consistent for the last two years, despite the efforts of websites to introduce age verification and other tools by technology firms.

Protecting children from harm will be a legal requirement once the Online Safety Act is fully operational in 2025 and website owners will be required to ensure that children below the age of 13 do not have access to their sites.

In Australia they are in the process of banning social media for those under 16.

Broadly speaking, in order to comply with this, websites are to introduce age verification by the use of a document such as school or bank records, age estimation by looking at the things that vary with age, such as facial features or voice and looking at things that mean that they are likely to be an adult eg are they married, do they have a mortgage etc. If they are in breach of this requirement they can be fined up to $32.5 million dollars.

As they are often the same companies involved, I suspect that websites in the UK will follow suit in order to meet next year's requirements.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I think you mean social media sites - children under 13 will not be banned from all websites at all, thats utter nonsense you have made up.

They are debating it, its not quite a law yet.
Also, again, you completely miss the point that it wont stop anyone.
Under 18's (16s in the past) have been banned from buying cigarettes (& Alcohol) for decades, its never stopped them getting either.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Voted on and now law.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Yes like others laws passed really work don't they. No-one steals, speeds or murders since becoming illegal. Just another way for lawyers to make money 💰

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I'm pretty sure that there's fewer murders, theft and speeding because of the laws against them. They're not there for the lawyers. The penalties act as deterrents, they can't prevent these situations entirely due to human nature.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Exactly.

---------- Post added at 01:50 ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 ----------

I was speaking in the context of social media sites.

If by the use of this term they specifically mean sites like Facebook, Snapchat, etc and not all sites with user to user content, I wonder if there will be more children joining forums such as this one as an alternative??

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Hopefully not, at times there’s already enough children on here……

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

no they'll stay on the sites their on now,they'll just work around the legalities i don't believe it's that easy to put the geanie back in the bottle

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I'm sure that some will try as it's always been the case that children have tried to do things that they're not supposed to, not just online, but things like drinking under age etc.

If they do manage to succeed they will have nothing to lose as it won't be them or their parents that get into trouble, it will be the site owners that cop for it.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

If it wasn't against the law it would be legal, so questionable if it was recorded :erm: laws could be a lot simpler, politicians, a lot of whom are lawyers , don't choose to pass , if you do this the sentence is this , but add a lot of but ........:shocked: so back to passing this won't stop it happening. Which Richard clearly believes it will.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

As the Online Safety Act is introduced, website owners have been given three months notice by Ofcom that they must ensure that their sites are compliant with their code of practice by next March:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safe...es-into-force/

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Thats a lot of websites they have to check, i have one and i have checked my contact details on the site so lets see if they contact me as mine is not compliant on one little issue :)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Again, you imply this is ALL websites, when its not.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Indeed and that is why i posted what i did. My site is not compliant and never will be. I think those that do use it which are friends and is invite only would kick up a stink if i changed it to compile with those who are offended on behalf of those they think should be offended but are not offended. :D

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I was talking in the context of social media sites.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

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.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

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

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

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

---------- Post added at 16:17 ---------- Previous post was at 16:13 ----------

Thanks for the clarification, as I mentioned earlier, I wasn't sure if this only applied to sites such as Snapchat, Facebook etc (as this has been the main focus of the regulator), or if it includes all user to user sites.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Tech Life looks forward to the Online Safety Act in 2025:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct5wnb

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

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 ----------

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

Isn’t that what your facilitators are there for ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...or-negotiation

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

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.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

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.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

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.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

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.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Strangely I thought parents were supposed to be in charge. Seems that today it's the other way round. Just glad I am past this situation.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

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. ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

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.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I am sure children in the past managed to get over it.l now I did.and that was face to face, if you count heads in the jon:rolleyes: perhaps the answer is keep them away from smart tec.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

No, it isnt.

---------- Post added at 21:41 ---------- Previous post was at 21:38 ----------

Yet more nonsense.
There are always calls from the nannys who would like to control everything.

Drinking water is legal, but potentially harmful, I suppose we should ban that as well. :rolleyes: