Online Safety Bill Etc

[Carth]

Shut it junior

Originally Posted by Carth

I'm a pensioner, I often get emails and unsolicited phone calls that urge me to click a strange link, or 'speak to an advisor', or try to con me into thinking my Amazon account has been compromised.

Where's my protection? I'm at an age where senility is allegedly as bad as being a 7 yr old again and I demand protection from the nasty people trying to take advantage of my vulnerability.

I can help you with that - PM your bank details and passwords, and I absolutely guarantee you that I will ensure that no one else will be able to take any money from your accounts…

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I can help you with that - PM your bank details and passwords, and I absolutely guarantee you that I will ensure that no one else will be able to take any money from your accounts…

I never had you down as an exiled Namibian Prince

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Carth

I'm a pensioner, I often get emails and unsolicited phone calls that urge me to click a strange link, or 'speak to an advisor', or try to con me into thinking my Amazon account has been compromised.

Where's my protection? I'm at an age where senility is allegedly as bad as being a 7 yr old again and I demand protection from the nasty people trying to take advantage of my vulnerability.

Love it

[Sirius]

MPs vote down social media ban for under-16s

MPs have voted against a proposal to ban under-16s from using social media.

The Conservatives had pushed for the move via an amendment to the government's flagship education legislation currently going through parliament: the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

It had been backed by the House of Lords, but was defeated in the Commons on Monday night by 307 votes to 173.

https://news.sky.com/story/mps-vote-...r-16s-13517545

[Carth]

I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by being denied 'access' to sites unless I create an account and log in (for my safety apparently)

Take Twitch as an example, I used to browse the games section to see if there was anything I fancied trying, watching some gameplay to see it I liked it.
Now I can't do that because some of the content may be 'distressing' or 'harmful' to my well being . . at the age of 72 you're a bit bloody late

On the other hand, I can easily watch the news programs and see (often with images) stories of people being stabbed, shot, mown down by cars, and desperate people starving while their homes are being blown to smithereens by missiles & bombs.

It seems to me that Real Life isn't classed as 'harmful' to me as watching a movie or video game.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Carth

I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by being denied 'access' to sites unless I create an account and log in (for my safety apparently)

Take Twitch as an example, I used to browse the games section to see if there was anything I fancied trying, watching some gameplay to see it I liked it.
Now I can't do that because some of the content may be 'distressing' or 'harmful' to my well being . . at the age of 72 you're a bit bloody late

On the other hand, I can easily watch the news programs and see (often with images) stories of people being stabbed, shot, mown down by cars, and desperate people starving while their homes are being blown to smithereens by missiles & bombs.

It seems to me that Real Life isn't classed as 'harmful' to me as watching a movie or video game.

It's to cover themselves because they have no proof of your age, but I take your point about the news.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Sirius

MPs vote down social media ban for under-16s

MPs have voted against a proposal to ban under-16s from using social media.

The Conservatives had pushed for the move via an amendment to the government's flagship education legislation currently going through parliament: the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

It had been backed by the House of Lords, but was defeated in the Commons on Monday night by 307 votes to 173.

https://news.sky.com/story/mps-vote-...r-16s-13517545

Does this mean that parents will have to police their own kids online activity

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Does this mean that parents will have to police their own kids online activity

Ideally this should be being done anyway, but we don't live in an ideal world.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Ideally this should be being done anyway, but we don't live in an ideal world.

No, no we don't.
We live in a World where everyone else has to pick up the pieces and roll with the consequences of taking away a good slap around the earhole

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Does this mean that parents will have to police their own kids online activity

No, the government will be doing that by preventing them from accessing anything except Pepper Pig & Bluey (after they have provided a certified copy their birth certificate).

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's to cover themselves because they have no proof of your age, but I take your point about the news.

What irritates me on the news is everything is now tagged with "Distressing Content" when there is nothing remotely "distressing" about any of it.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Paul

No, the government will be doing that by preventing them from accessing anything except Pepper Pig & Bluey (after they have provided a certified copy their birth certificate).


What irritates me on the news is everything is now tagged with "Distressing Content" when there is nothing remotely "distressing" about any of it.

Yep, I think at one time it was 'viewers discretion' or some such wording, maybe they could do the same on Twitch (and other places) so I could watch if I wanted to, or hide behind the sofa if I thought it was scary

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Paul

No, the government will be doing that by preventing them from accessing anything except Pepper Pig & Bluey (after they have provided a certified copy their birth certificate).


What irritates me on the news is everything is now tagged with "Distressing Content" when there is nothing remotely "distressing" about any of it.

Some people may find it distressing though. If they've been through or witnessed similar events.

[jem]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Some people may find it distressing though. If they've been through or witnessed similar events.

But how will they know if it will be or not? Unless they go into detail to describe why it might be distressing - which in itself reading that, might be distressing to people who have witnessed similar events.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Hypothetically, a news crew film the aftermath of a massacre, a story that needs to be told, it’s in a news bulletin, the announcer reports that we have video of the scene of a mass killing - please be warned that some viewers might find the following section disturbing!

Now the vast, vast majority of people will, correctly, realise that what is likely to be shown are dead bodies, possibly children, the more ‘graphic images won’t be shown - but still! And then they can make a choice, watch it or not!

However a minority of people won’t or can’t make that decision and see something that really upsets them.

The question is where do you draw the line? Do you censor everything, just in case one person is upset by what they see, is newsworthy and really important evidence of a massacre not shown and publicised because a few people might be distressed?

Ideally this wouldn’t be a problem, alas we don’t live in an ideal world. I’m sorry, really sorry for people who may occasionally be exposed to seeing something that they find triggering - but the greater good.....?

---------- Post added at 22:17 ---------- Previous post was at 21:57 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Does this mean that parents will have to police their own kids online activity

The idea of somehow policing kid’s online activity is gone, it’s nigh on impossible. Maybe in the past when there might be one ‘family computer’ in the living room; but now...?

I know I have said this before but I have two daughters (now 20 and 24 years old), wind back 15 years or so when my eldest was 10-11 and I got her an iPod Touch and hence access to the internet.

I did set up some kind of filtering, (K9), but working it IT, I understood perfectly how porous these filters are.

So what I said to her was, ‘this gives you access to the sum total of human knowledge; but also some bad stuff. If or when you stumble across something that worries you, anything you are not sure about, anything that you are not OK with; then you come to me or your Mum, you show us, and we will explain it all to you. Importantly, you will not be in any trouble, no punishments, you have done nothing wrong’.

I am concerned that people think you can provide a technological solution to what is actually a parenting issue!

Originally Posted by Stephen

Some people may find it distressing though. If they've been through or witnessed similar events.

Unless they are as stupid as hell, its pretty clear what an article or video is about.
If they really are that dumb, the "warning" wont matter anyway, they'll just ignore it.

It really is as stupid as putting "Warning, may contain nuts" on a packet of nuts.