Online Safety Bill Etc

[jfman]

Where have Ofcom said this and how will they do so?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Thank you

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...anada-68110001
Looks like America is also losing patience
with user generated sites not protecting users. The owners of websites are openly being laughed at with the refusal to answer questions and the nonsense that they are coming out with.

All vulnerable people should be protected, but children especially so. This is why
Ofcom are Prioritising the online Safety Act to deal with this first, but complaints can still be made about other issues.

Wow, just seen a report on this on the BBC 10pm news. A warning was made to someone that what they were looking for may contain child abuse content. It then offered tools to block such content or, unbelievably, a choice to view the content!!!

There were a number of parents there who had sadly lost children as a result of online bullying. One remarked that the taps were
overflowing and they were being given a mop to deal with it.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Wow, just seen a report on this on the BBC 10pm news. A warning was made to someone that what they were looking for may contain child abuse content. It then offered tools to block such content or, unbelievably, a choice to view the content!!!

There were a number of parents there who had sadly lost children as a result of online bullying. One remarked that the taps were
overflowing and they were being given a mol to deal with it.

May isn’t definite…

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

A warning was made to someone that what they were looking for may contain child abuse content. It then offered tools to block such content or, unbelievably, a choice to view the content!!!

Why is that unbelievable ?
As noted, "may" does not mean it does.
You dont block people on a vague "it may".

Many foods have warnings they "may" contain x, y or z, it doesnt mean they do.

Once again you read something somewhere and automatically assume its bad becasue someone with an agenda wants to make it look that way, when it really isnt.

[ Btw, what's a 'mol' ? Its not a word or device I'm familiar with. ]

[RichardCoulter]

It was a report on last night's news. I don't think that most people would want to proceed if there was a possibility of being exposed to child abuse.

Mol should say mop, sorry my sight issue. Fixed.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I don't think that most people would want to proceed if there was a possibility of being exposed to child abuse.

That doesnt make it "unbelievable" they are given a choice, when its clearly not a certainty.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

That doesnt make it "unbelievable" they are given a choice, when its clearly not a certainty.

The point that they were making (and that I agree with) is that people shouldn't be being given the choice as to whether to view material flagged as potentially containing child abuse.

Only those who would enjoy seeing such material would proceed. The rest wouldn't take the risk as it would sicken them or be psychologically damaging.

Such material should be identified and referred for investigation to either deal with illegal material or correct it from being innapropriately flagged up.

I know what point you're trying to make, and I disagree.
Read your own words ... "may" or "potentially" - they do NOT mean "does".

Much like the systems that say something "may" contain "distressing scenes" or "violent content", I make a choice, and guess what, they never do.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Thank you

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...anada-68110001


Looks like America is also losing patience with user generated sites not protecting users. The owners of websites are openly being laughed at with the refusal to answer questions and the
nonsense that they are coming out with.

All vulnerable people should be protected, but children especially so. This is why Ofcom are Prioritising the online Safety Act to deal with this first, but complaints can still be made about other issues.

Your welcome, picked it up on CNN and checked BBC just for you not sure if you get CNN.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Your welcome, picked it up on CNN and checked BBC just for you not sure if you get CNN.

Don't get CNN anymore as it was taken off Virgin.

[RichardCoulter]

The mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey is calling for restrictions on mobile phones for under 16's.

She wants them to only be able to have basic phones or child smartphones that don't give access to social media.

On the last Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme a Government spokeswoman said that she thought that an outright ban would be draconian, but that a ban at school would be sensible.

This link contains a link to the petition should anyone wish to sign it:

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk...one-age-limit/

This was also discussed on the Jeremy Vine shoe this morning where there was a call for more regulation of user to user sites because all they are interested in is continued increased usage and not the welfare of vulnerable people.

[Pierre]

Not ever going to happen, so that’s that.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey is calling for restrictions on mobile phones for under 16's.
She wants them to only be able to have basic phones or child smartphones that don't give access to social media.

While I'm sorry she lost a child, shes also totally lost the plot.

Hunting Knives are already restricted, that didnt exactly help did it ?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey is calling for restrictions on mobile phones for under 16's.

She wants them to only be able to have basic phones or child smartphones that don't give access to social media.

On the last Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme a Government spokeswoman said that she thought that an outright ban would be draconian, but that a ban at school would be sensible.

This link contains a link to the petition should anyone wish to sign it:

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk...one-age-limit/

This was also discussed on the Jeremy Vine shoe this morning where there was a call for more regulation of user to user sites because all they are interested in is continued increased usage and not the welfare of vulnerable people.

Oh god yet another load of spazamataz

Most phones are bought for children by their parents in the first place

Social media can be blocked using controls that are supplied by providers such as Vodafone

People should learn that they don’t get everything handed to them on a plate and quelle surprise here we go again it’s about personal responsibilities the it’s always someone else’s fault/responsibility is quite frankly ridiculous

[RichardCoulter]

Today is safer Internet day, more information here:

Today - Tuesday, 6 February 2024 - is Safer Internet Day. This special celebration takes place in February of each year to raise awareness of a safer and better internet for all, and especially for children and young people.

As part of this annual celebration, we encourage everyone - including children and young people, parents and caregivers, teachers and educators, policymakers, industry and others - to join "Together for a better internet".

https://www.saferinternetday.org/