Online Safety Bill Etc

[RichardCoulter]

Anyone thinking about ending their own life who is searching out content of this nature should not be able to find DIY guides on the internet.

The algorithm would also note that they are interested in this subject and serve up even more content.

People should not be allowed to encourage people to commit suicide in forums, chatrooms etc without consequences.

---------- Post added at 20:15 ---------- Previous post was at 20:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

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.

That's pure unproven speculation.


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

Responsible parents would ensure that their child is at school and in bed at a reasonable hour, so restricting the hours when these activities should be taking place wouldn't affect them. It's the children of parents who, for various reasons, don't bring up their children responsibly that this legislation aims to protect (if it is actually introduced).

The Technology Secretary doesn't believe that legislation to ban mobile phones from schools altogether is necessary as most schools are dealing with this themselves.

[Stephen]

The more you try and control and limit children/teens the more they are likely to rebel and do those things.

Slightly different but the same idea prevails. Scottish government tried to control and limit alcohol with minimum pricing per unit and not able to purchase in a shop before 10am and after 10pm. But none of those things work as there is always a loophole and workarounds. People will just spend more on the thing they want.

[RichardCoulter]

This programme from yesterday discusses the issues raised, including legislation that holds site owners being liable for what people post, forums that encourage suicide, limiting screen time for children, algorithms and more.

Some alternatives are put forward to the proposals.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002d9rn

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This programme from yesterday discusses the issues raised, including legislation that holds site owners being liable for what people post, forums that encourage suicide, limiting screen time for children, algorithms and more.

Some alternatives are put forward to the proposals.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002d9rn

I have an alternative but forum rules don't allow me to post them

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

I have an alternative but forum rules don't allow me to post them

That's a shame as it makes for a more interesting & fruitful debate. Could you not put your point of view across without breaking forum rules?

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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

Nothing, but the responsibility is then yours as would any action be. There are tools that can assist parents to police their children's use of technology, which together with other good parenting habits can do a great deal to help protect children from overuse or abuse of on-line media etc.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Nothing, but the responsibility is then yours as would any action be. There are tools that can assist parents to police their children's use of technology, which together with other good parenting habits can do a great deal to help protect children from overuse or abuse of on-line media etc.

you mean parental responsibility gosh what a terrifying thought setting the rules for your own kids is

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

you mean parental responsibility gosh what a terrifying thought setting the rules for your own kids is

But the whole point of taking steps to protect children is for those parents who don't take appropriate action to protect their children from online harm, and these children need protecting too.

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

But the whole point of taking steps to protect children is for those parents who don't take appropriate action to protect their children from online harm, and these children need protecting too.

But how far do you erode the freedoms of others to protect children whose parents (care givers) are neglecting their duty? Do you ban cars because children whose parents haven't taught them not to play on/near the road could be killed? (This is beyond the duty of drivers to be aware of the conditions.)
If parents don't properly and fully train their children because they can't be bothered, isn't that a form of neglect? As always we need to differentiate between those who can't and those who won't.
Children do not need a smart phone, or even a phone at all. Do not give them one and if you must make it a member of a family group where you lock it down and limit it to suit your rules. Do they need their own computer? We gave our refurbished Lenovo laptops with Linux, they could do all they needed to up to the end of school (then my daughter needed Windows for 6th form to run Adobe) and they couldn't install stuff likely to break it.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

But how far do you erode the freedoms of others to protect children whose parents (care givers) are neglecting their duty? Do you ban cars because children whose parents haven't taught them not to play on/near the road could be killed? (This is beyond the duty of drivers to be aware of the conditions.)
If parents don't properly and fully train their children because they can't be bothered, isn't that a form of neglect? As always we need to differentiate between those who can't and those who won't.
Children do not need a smart phone, or even a phone at all. Do not give them one and if you must make it a member of a family group where you lock it down and limit it to suit your rules. Do they need their own computer? We gave our refurbished Lenovo laptops with Linux, they could do all they needed to up to the end of school (then my daughter needed Windows for 6th form to run Adobe) and they couldn't install stuff likely to break it.

You raise some very pertinent points. As for your questions, I guess we must delegate the answers to the people we have elected to represent us in Parliament.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

But the whole point of taking steps to protect children is for those parents who don't take appropriate action to protect their children from online harm, and these children need protecting too.

how many children do you have

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Anyone thinking about ending their own life who is searching out content of this nature should not be able to find DIY guides on the internet.

The algorithm would also note that they are interested in this subject and serve up even more content.

anyone can put anything on a server.

People should not be allowed to encourage people to commit suicide in forums, chatrooms etc without consequences.

Agreed, but what about nuance?

What about a scenario where two young teenage lovers break up, and she says "if you break up with me, I'll kill myself" and he responds "do it then, I don't care"

Should he be prosecuted?

Responsible parents would ensure that their child is at school and in bed at a reasonable hour, so restricting the hours when these activities should be taking place wouldn't affect them. It's the children of parents who, for various reasons, don't bring up their children responsibly that this legislation aims to protect (if it is actually introduced).

The state trying to take the role of the parent.......what could go wrong?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

You raise some very pertinent points. As for your questions, I guess we must delegate the answers to the people we have elected to represent us in Parliament.

Nice non answer

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

But how far do you erode the freedoms of others to protect children whose parents (care givers) are neglecting their duty? Do you ban cars because children whose parents haven't taught them not to play on/near the road could be killed? (This is beyond the duty of drivers to be aware of the conditions.)
If parents don't properly and fully train their children because they can't be bothered, isn't that a form of neglect? As always we need to differentiate between those who can't and those who won't.
Children do not need a smart phone, or even a phone at all. Do not give them one and if you must make it a member of a family group where you lock it down and limit it to suit your rules. Do they need their own computer? We gave our refurbished Lenovo laptops with Linux, they could do all they needed to up to the end of school (then my daughter needed Windows for 6th form to run Adobe) and they couldn't install stuff likely to break it.

Commonsense, what's gone wrong on this forum

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Nice non answer

Because we lack the experience or knowledge to answer & resolve many issues or simply can't be bothered to deal with them, we elect MP's to do so on our behalf.

Ultimately, it will be these people who will decide what needs addressing and how to do it.

We are able to try and influence them in various ways if we wish and, of course, some MP's are better than others.