Online Safety Bill Etc

“Grossly disproportionate” is the phrase you’re looking for.

[RichardCoulter]

The next stage of implementing the Online Safety Act will be in July when age verification measures come into force.

The Technology Secretary has confirmed he is considering further measures to make the internet safer for children, this may include time limits to restrict access to social media by blocking their access after 10pm and during school hours.

Ian Russell (who lost his daughter due to online abuse) and others say that this doesn't go far enough and urge the Government be tougher & go further

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The next stage of implementing the Online Safety Act will be in July when age verification measures come into force.

The Technology Secretary has confirmed he is considering further measures to make the internet safer for children, this may include time limits to restrict access to social media by blocking their access after 10pm and during school hours.

Ian Russell (who lost his daughter due to online abuse) and others say that this doesn't go far enough and urge the Government be tougher & go further

are we in the Soviet bloody union

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

are we in the Soviet bloody union

People mustn't think for or are look after them self's, mummy must hold your hand at all times

[peanut]

Pornhub banned in France due to age verification. Obviously VPN demand jumps 1,000% after Pornhub pulls out of France... Says it all. All pointless. (Pun not intended).

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

are we in the Soviet bloody union

They are also considering a max two hour screen time.

These measures, if introduced, would only apply to children, not adults.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

They are also considering a max two hour screen time.

These measures, if introduced, would only apply to children, not adults.

Those measures, if introduced, would be as utterly unenforceable as all the rest of it.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

They are also considering a max two hour screen time.

These measures, if introduced, would only apply to children, not adults.

so what's stopping me logging on and handing the PC over to a child

Originally Posted by papa smurf

so what's stopping me logging on and handing the PC over to a child

Nothing, hence the unenforcable bit.

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:25 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Ian Russell (who lost his daughter due to online abuse) and others say that this doesn't go far enough and urge the Government be tougher & go further

I'm sorry he lost his child, but frankly its time he shut his gob and stopped trying to control what everyone else does.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Paul

I'm sorry he lost his child, but frankly it’s time he shut his gob and stopped trying to control what everyone else does.

Seconded.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The next stage of implementing the Online Safety Act will be in July when age verification measures come into force.

The Technology Secretary has confirmed he is considering further measures to make the internet safer for children, this may include time limits to restrict access to social media by blocking their access after 10pm and during school hours.

Ian Russell (who lost his daughter due to online abuse) and others say that this doesn't go far enough and urge the Government be tougher & go further

Wasn't online abuse by others. She actively sought out certain content. Her mindset was there already.
Link

Molly, from Harrow, London, took her own life in 2017 after viewing suicide and self-harm content online on sites such as Instagram and Pinterest.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

so what's stopping me logging on and handing the PC over to a child

Nothing, but why would you want your child to be on social media instead of learning at school or getting to sleep at a reasonable time?

---------- Post added at 18:22 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Wasn't online abuse by others. She actively sought out certain content. Her mindset was there already.
Link

The salient point being made is that his child ended up dead as a result of inappropriate internet content/encouragement.

This blatant fact went straight over your head as you look to constantly disagree with what anyone says both on & off this forum, coupled with a large dose of non empathy.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Nothing, but why would you want your child to be on social media instead of learning at school or getting to sleep at a reasonable time?

---------- Post added at 18:22 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------



The salient point being made is that his child ended up dead as a result of inappropriate internet content/encouragement.

This blatant fact went straight over your head as you look to constantly disagree with what anyone says both on & off this forum, coupled with a large dose of non empathy.

Nobody encouraged her. The thoughts were there BEFORE looking for any content. That is the salient point.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Nothing, but why would you want your child to be on social media instead of learning at school or getting to sleep at a reasonable time?

If they are at school, they are not on SM during lessons. If they are asleep, you are not on anything, and "reasonable time" is subjective.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The salient point being made is that his child ended up dead as a result of inappropriate internet content/encouragement.

That's pure unproven speculation.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This blatant fact went straight over your head as you look to constantly disagree with what anyone says both on & off this forum, coupled with a large dose of non empathy.

Its not a "blatent fact" at all. Its time you learned to seperate facts from assumptions & speculation.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Nothing, but why would you want your child to be on social media instead of learning at school or getting to sleep at a reasonable time?

---------- Post added at 18:22 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------



The salient point being made is that his child ended up dead as a result of inappropriate internet content/encouragement.

This blatant fact went straight over your head as you look to constantly disagree with what anyone says both on & off this forum, coupled with a large dose of non empathy.

Point being made is she was already thinking about that and sought out content about it. Not viewing the content likely would NOT have changed the outcome. That's the blatant point. Controlling others is not the answer here.