Quote:
Originally Posted by jem
Actually, I’m not 100% sure that I understand what Richard’s position on this really is.
On the face of it, it does look as if he is in favour of increased controls irrespective of the consequences to everyone else - but then he posts that a similar scheme in Australia has resulted in some 70% of under-16s have managed to trivially bypass the requirements. Which is true and would undermine any argument he might have in favour.
So it’s all very confusing - so maybe, just to clarify things, would you, Richard, be prepared to state, unequivocally, your stance on this? Just so we all know where we all stand and can argue our cases rationally.
I’ll start; I’m all in favour of doing what is ‘reasonable’ to protect children from the murkier side of the internet - but this simply will not work. Just as in Australia, the majority of children who actively want to use social media will, absolutely will, find a way around it. Yes some will be deterred, and stop using it. But the cost, the cost to everyone else who needs to somehow prove their age?
Yes I know the argument ‘well if it saves just one child then.....’
The vast, vast majority of child abuse incidents (sexual or otherwise) take place in their own home or the home of a relative. Should it be mandated that permanently-on CCTV cameras be fitted into every room (yes including the bathroom) in every house in the UK, recording 24/7?
After all, if it saves one child then.......
|
My view is that any right thinking person should want to protect the vulnerable from harm by predators, scammers, bullies etc, be they be vulnerable due to age, disability, mental illness/disability etc.
Generally speaking I have a neutral stance on the attempts being made and have no axe to grind, so don't think it's helpful to try and cause political mischief, so it's all up for discussion, as long as transparency is maintained at all times.