Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
From what i've been reading online it seems that there is confusion between what's required of user to user sites and age verification, the two are becoming conflated.
They said that the Act was intended to be broad, but it appears that this is leading to different interpretations of it too.
One site has now disabled their DM facility. Their reasoning is that public posts can be monitored for inappropriate content and dealt with but, as their software doesn't allow staff to read DM's, inappropriate or unlawful material could be sent from one member to another. This could lead to a situation where the owner(s) and staff could be held responsible for something that they had no knowledge of.
|
Well staff shouldn’t be able to read DMs should they, they are supposed to be ‘personal messages (or direct messages) between users. And no in this case the site owners are not responsible. This is the so-called ‘chilling effect’, it’s not illegal but we aren’t sure so we’ll shut it down just in case.
Think of it like this, if hypothetically, I were to send ‘inappropriate material’ to a 15 year old, say, in the post; then would Royal Mail be held responsible? Should they open and check every single letter and parcel just in case?
Although I do get the intentions of this law, it’s bad law, it will not, absolutely will not achieve what it claims do to in any meaningful sense, but will risk users personal information.
Mod edit (Chris): Please do not type any of your reply within the post you’re quoting. It is needlessly confusing and makes it more difficult for users to further reply to you.
Also, do not put your posts in bold, this is reserved for moderator comments like this one.