Online Safety Bill Etc

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are correct. We are changing the law for a minority of children who are vulnerable and should have better parental oversightat the expense of the majority, who know and understand right from wrong.

The correct solution is to ensure the social media companies employ safeguards. It can’t be that difficult.

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:10 ----------



Richard, did you go to a State school? Remember the playground?

What’s the difference?

It's been discussed previously as to why leaving it to parental responsibility doesn't work.

Critics agree with your point about making social media companies responsible for safety instead of this ban. The trouble with this is that they tend to be located abroard and put profits before anything else & Ofcom would face the same issues when trying to enforce our laws onto them as they have found when trying to enforce over 18 legislation for porn sites thus far, if they don't comply.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's been discussed previously as to why leaving it to parental responsibility doesn't work.

Critics agree with your point about making social media companies responsible for safety instead of this ban. The trouble with this is that they tend to be located abroard and put profits before anything else & Ofcom would face the same issues when trying to enforce our laws onto them as they have found when trying to enforce over 18 legislation for porn sites thus far, if they don't comply.

You don’t get it, Richard. Kids nowadays are familiar with VPNs and know how to circumvent the system.

What you have been advocating all this time will penalise adults, not kids.

A better solution than this is required.

Incidentally, on your point about internet security, my eldest daughter used to monitor her children’s use of the internet, and if they were sneakily trying to use it outside of the approved times, she would switch off the broadband.

It’s not rocket science.

[Carth]

What's going to happen in the next stage of this fiasco, you know, when 80% of the UK internet traffic is going through VPN's?

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Carth

What's going to happen in the next stage of this fiasco, you know, when 80% of the UK internet traffic is going through VPN's?

They'll call it a success and they'll say everything is working to plan.

[jem]

Originally Posted by Carth

What's going to happen in the next stage of this fiasco, you know, when 80% of the UK internet traffic is going through VPN's?

That would be a disaster for online safety and children’s private information - everything is being sent through some dodgy VPN provider, based, God knows where, offering a ‘free’ service - free, because?

See ‘Law of Unintended Consequences’!

But ‘peanut’ is right, the politicians will point to stats showing that very few under-16s are connecting to social media from UK-based IP addresses*; and laud it as a great success.

*Because they are all connecting from, apparently, somewhere in Azerbaijan!

[thenry]

I always remember PIA VPN when VPNs are discussed because they used "always use protection" as their slogan. Imagine ID requirements to buy condoms, contraception fall and birth giving on the rise. Proper labour that. Those college courses for young mothers were a hit during labours last tenure.

[jem]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You don’t get it, Richard. Kids nowadays are familiar with VPNs and know how to circumvent the system.

What you have been advocating all this time will penalise adults, not kids.

<snip>

It’s not rocket science.

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.......

[Itshim]

Starmer has done another u turn with this . Looking for support from his MPs. Not sure I am happy about having to prove am 76.

[RichardCoulter]

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.

[papa smurf]

i suppose kids will just have to go back to joining gangs and making everyone's life a living hell now they won't have anything to do ,bit of grand theft auto, shoplifting, all the fun things that kids in bedrooms don't do

[jem]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Starmer has done another u turn with this . Looking for support from his MPs. Not sure I am happy about having to prove am 76.

What; you claim to be 76, but your profile on CF clearly states that you are 75?

Citizen, we need you to come down to the station while we verify your actual status.

You see where this is headed?

[Carth]

I was thinking I could claim to be 21 (again) but then got worried they'd stop my pension