Online Safety Bill Etc

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sirius

We should call it "The world according to Richard daily broadcast"

Borecast more like

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Borecast more like

If you don't like my contributions put me on ignore instead of being rude for absolutely no reason at all whatsoever.

[Huxie]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

If you don't like my contributions put me on ignore instead of being rude for absolutely no reason at all whatsoever.

On this I do have to agree. The personal comments directed at you are wholly unnecessary.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

If you don't like my contributions put me on ignore instead of being rude for absolutely no reason at all whatsoever.

Point of order. It’s not for no reason.

Carry on….

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

If you don't like my contributions put me on ignore instead of being rude for absolutely no reason at all whatsoever.

I told you the other day interacting with you upsets me because you're so unpleasant, it's why as a general rule I don't reply to your posts, seeing as you're unable to do the same why don't you put me on ignore instead

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This refers to a bog standard smartphone ie not a child phone. Child phones generally refer to basic phones or smartphones that are specially designed or modified for use by children.

Things could be worse, a village in France has just banned everyone from scrolling on their phone in public and are offering 'dumb' phones to children under 15

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articl...dian%20reports.

What about Tablets?

What about PCs?

What about Smart Watches?

What about smart TVs?

Social media is available to any device that can access the internet, do you suggest all are banned?

It will never happen so I would advise you to stop obsessing about it.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

If you don't like my contributions put me on ignore instead of being rude for absolutely no reason at all whatsoever.

Us moderators can't put you on ignore so we have to read your nonsense contributions.

I can't see that anyone has been particularly rude towards you just robust in speaking out about the nonsense you spout.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Point of order. It’s not for no reason.

Carry on….

Explain why you believe that being rude to me personally is acceptable.

---------- Post added at 22:18 ---------- Previous post was at 22:17 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I told you the other day interacting with you upsets me because you're so unpleasant, it's why as a general rule I don't reply to your posts, seeing as you're unable to do the same why don't you put me on ignore instead

Explain how I am so unpleasant and provide examples.

---------- Post added at 22:20 ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy

Us moderators can't put you on ignore so we have to read your nonsense contributions.

I can't see that anyone has been particularly rude towards you just robust in speaking out about the nonsense you spout.

What 'nonsense' are you referring to?

---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

What about Tablets?

What about PCs?

What about Smart Watches?

What about smart TVs?

Social media is available to any device that can access the internet, do you suggest all are banned?

It will never happen so I would advise you to stop obsessing about it.

As I said to Chris, i'm not obsessed about children using smartphones. If this law comes to pass it won't be for us to decide the details or how to enforce it.

---------- Post added at 22:38 ---------- Previous post was at 22:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Huxie

On this I do have to agree. The personal comments directed at you are wholly unnecessary.

Indeed and thank you. A minority on here like to do this sort of thing, yet whenever they are asked for their reasons and to provide examples of the nonsense they come out with, they are never able to do so.

Just to warn you that you may get a backbiting message to stir things up by a certain woman on here as that's how she likes to do things.

Enough.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I'm not sure that the Tories would do this for electioneering purposes. A lot of Tories don't like state involvement of citizens lives.

Lots of laws aren't fit for purpose and/or cannot easily be enforced, bur it doesn't stop Parliament from passing them.

MP's could choose to amend the Online Safety Act to ban U16's from having an adult smartphone and some parents could decide to break the law and still allow them to have one.

In practice it's unlikely that they would be caught, particularly if phones are banned in schools. Sure, some will be caught if they decide to utilise spot checks, but I imagine that most will be caught when something goes wrong eg murder, child sex abuse and it's found that the child had access to social media.

I'd like to know what you think about that 14 years old knows how to access the Dark Web. And how you think that should be regulated?

Do you think restricting mobile phones is going to change anything? Take the Brianna murder, (Quoted from the Guardian) - 'They had “massive battles” over Brianna’s mobile phone, she said, with Brianna changing her passcode on her 16th birthday so that her mother could not check up on her.' - So what would happen if you take a phone away from someone highly vulnerable? How does a parent of someone highly vulnerable work around that? Easy to say, impossible to do don't you think?

If someone wants to search or find something, there's no way you can stop them, no matter what age they are or whatever restrictions you put upon them.

[RichardCoulter]

The call for banning smartphones to protect U16's from social media appears to be gaining traction.

Every day since there's been something in either the paper or television. Today it was discussed on This Morning. Some of the points made on here have been raised, today Dermot O'Leary said "How do you put the genie genie back in the bottle?"

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The call for banning smartphones to protect U16's from social media appears to be gaining traction.

Every day since there's been something in either the paper or television. Today it was discussed on This Morning. Some of the points made on here have been raised, today Dermot O'Leary said "How do you put the genie genie back in the bottle?"

How are they going to stop parents from buying adult smart phones for their teenagers under your dystopian scheme? You do know that many parents will be persuaded by their kids to buy them adult phones, don’t you?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

How are they going to stop parents from buying adult smart phones for their teenagers under your dystopian scheme? You do know that many parents will be persuaded by their kids to buy them adult phones, don’t you?

An idea so bad OB and I agree.

It's completely unenforceable at that level.

I don't support the idea - and I know it won't happen - but from a tech perspective the idea that manufacturers will develop different product lines for the under 16s of the UK is wild. In reality (if such a bad idea were to happen) it's giving big tech companies biometric data and having differentiated services available on the device depending on who is logged in.

The entire population won't sign up to that, nor sign their children up to that. I recognise that a significant proportion of the population (myself included) do use fingerprint or facial recognition to unlock devices but the idea it would become mandatory is quite objectionable.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

How are they going to stop parents from buying adult smart phones for their teenagers under your dystopian scheme? You do know that many parents will be persuaded by their kids to buy them adult phones, don’t you?

My scheme? What are you talking about?
It's not me that started the petition.

There was a phone in today and every parent and expert that rang in supported the idea, with some suggesting that U16's should only be allowed to have a basic/dumb phone.

Some seemed to think it's a good idea as it would restrict screen time as opposed to social media. Some thought that a better idea would be to ban U16's from social media instead.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

My scheme? What are you talking about?
It's not me that started the petition.

There was a phone in today and every parent and expert that rang in supported the idea, with some suggesting that U16's should only be allowed to have a basic/dumb phone.

Some seemed to think it's a good idea as it would restrict screen time as opposed to social media. Some thought that a better idea would be to ban U16's from social media instead.

It could reasonably be inferred from your posts that you support the idea. It is not unreasonable for OB to use the term.

If he (and I) are incorrect, what do you actually propose?

What mechanisms of enforcement (more important than the idea) do you propose? I didn't go to the greatest of schools but if you tried particularly hard you could probably find many prohibited substances (of multiple classes) and/or weapons on a given day. And I'd consider that pretty average for teenage education in this country.