Online Safety Bill Etc

[Dude111]

I read something about the UK trying to block social media,etc....

The states should do this!!

http://www.gov.uk/government/news/so...childhood-back

[damien c]

Oh dear another big red flag for the Online Safety Act and Social Media Ban, and anything else the government try to say is to "Protect Children".

The company behind the software being used, is government funded and also was created in order to create the policy to force the use of their software!

They knew the policies were coming before the public even knew anything about it because the government gave them the information of upcoming policies and helped to create the products to use with them.

That is both the Conservatives and Labour!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LhvMgT_-dk

[Carth]

Can we report them to the monopolies commission?

[RichardCoulter]

Interesting article about the social media ban:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jy512r19ro

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Interesting article about the social media ban:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jy512r19ro

And you still support this nonsense?

All this will do is anger adults while failing to prevent children from accessing harmful sites.

Nice one, Richard.

[jem]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

And you still support this nonsense?

All this will do is anger adults while failing to prevent children from accessing harmful sites.

Nice one, Richard.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’m still not 100% sure what Richard’s position on this is? Other than supporting the idea of ‘protecting children’, which I’m sure we all are; I’m still unclear as to whether or not he would support the OSA or this proposed blanket ban on social media.

This proposed ban simply will not work, it can’t work, no more than the OSA prevents me from viewing pornographic content without first proving I’m over 18. Hint: I can, and have never been asked for age verification. It is trivially easy to bypass. You don’t even need to pay for a VPN, or even use a ‘free’ dodgy one.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

And you still support this nonsense?

All this will do is anger adults while failing to prevent children from accessing harmful sites.

Nice one, Richard.

What's this got to do with the link I posted? Did you even read it? It shows a balanced view.

---------- Post added at 01:17 ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 ----------

Originally Posted by jem

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’m still not 100% sure what Richard’s position on this is? Other than supporting the idea of ‘protecting children’, which I’m sure we all are; I’m still unclear as to whether or not he would support the OSA or this proposed blanket ban on social media.

This proposed ban simply will not work, it can’t work, no more than the OSA prevents me from viewing pornographic content without first proving I’m over 18. Hint: I can, and have never been asked for age verification. It is trivially easy to bypass. You don’t even need to pay for a VPN, or even use a ‘free’ dodgy one.

I answered your question earlier in the thread, i'll see if I can find it in the morning

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

What's this got to do with the link I posted? Did you even read it? It shows a balanced view.

Well, did you read it yourself, Richard?

In particular:

Much of the concerns raised so far about the proposals have been about civil liberties and government overreach. But there are other, more prosaic, unintended consequences to consider too.

"Every young person I have spoken to has told me the same thing: they will find a way around it," says Paddy Crump, campaigns director at Flippgen, a youth-led non-profit group that goes into schools to try and help young people build healthier relationships with the online world.

That is certainly what seems to have happened in Australia, where seven out of 10 children aged under 16 who had a social media account before it introduced its ban in December 2025, still have some access, according to a report by the country's e-safety commission.

Crump argues that the measures offer "false hope dressed up as protection" and will simply shift young people's online behaviour elsewhere: including to smaller digital platforms which fly beneath the radar of regulatory scrutiny.
"There are some pretty dangerous places for children and teens that make Instagram look like Disneyland," notes Ari Lightman, professor of digital media and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, did you read it yourself, Richard?

In particular:

Much of the concerns raised so far about the proposals have been about civil liberties and government overreach. But there are other, more prosaic, unintended consequences to consider too.

"Every young person I have spoken to has told me the same thing: they will find a way around it," says Paddy Crump, campaigns director at Flippgen, a youth-led non-profit group that goes into schools to try and help young people build healthier relationships with the online world.

That is certainly what seems to have happened in Australia, where seven out of 10 children aged under 16 who had a social media account before it introduced its ban in December 2025, still have some access, according to a report by the country's e-safety commission.

Crump argues that the measures offer "false hope dressed up as protection" and will simply shift young people's online behaviour elsewhere: including to smaller digital platforms which fly beneath the radar of regulatory scrutiny.
"There are some pretty dangerous places for children and teens that make Instagram look like Disneyland," notes Ari Lightman, professor of digital media and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University.

It gives both sides of the argument, both for & against the banning of U16's from social media.

---------- Post added at 10:15 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

What's this got to do with the link I posted? Did you even read it? It shows a balanced view.

---------- Post added at 01:17 ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 ----------



I answered your question earlier in the thread, i'll see if I can find it in the morning

Post 2019

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It gives both sides of the argument, both for & against the banning of U16's from social media.

Yes, but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages because it shows the measure is largely ineffective.

It’s just a sop to the complainants. A more intelligent response to this problem is required, but such solutions are beyond the wit of our career politicians.

Yes, we don’t need career politicians, we need those who haven’t been career politicians ( rules out Farage, as he was an MEP for 20 years, was a Parliamentary Candidate 8 times, was the Leader of UKIP for nearly 10 years, and has been the majority shareholder, now company controller, in Reform UK for 7 years…)

[papa smurf]

yep FDS

Ironic coming from someone with SDS (you've posted 17 times in the Starmer thread in the last 4 days...), soon to mutate to BDS...

FDS ? SDS ? BDS ?

Post in English please.

The Faragists have once again copied Trump rubbish by adapting TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome - anyone who posted anything negative about Trump, no matter if it was based in fact, was said to be suffering from TDS).

Reform supporters have just imitated Trump by coining FDS - Farage Derangement Syndrome…

SDS - Starmer Derangement Syndrome
BDS - Burnham Derangement Syndrome