Online Safety Bill Etc

[Carth]

It's all those 'ambulance chasing' lawyers isn't it, you now have to warn everyone about everything, otherwise you end up locked up and bankrupt.

You know the sort of thing . .

"Have you trodden in a cow pat in the dark while rustling cattle? Call us now and compensation will be swift and satisfactory"

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

Unless they are as stupid as hell, its pretty clear what an article or video is about.
If they really are that dumb, the "warning" wont matter anyway, they'll just ignore it.

It really is as stupid as putting "Warning, may contain nuts" on a packet of nuts.

They probably do it to cover those with mental impairments/disabilities, such as people with dementia etc

No, they dont, Carth is probably closer.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Sirius

MPs vote down social media ban for under-16s

MPs have voted against a proposal to ban under-16s from using social media.

The Conservatives had pushed for the move via an amendment to the government's flagship education legislation currently going through parliament: the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

It had been backed by the House of Lords, but was defeated in the Commons on Monday night by 307 votes to 173.

https://news.sky.com/story/mps-vote-...r-16s-13517545

Been announced today that social media companies will now have to robustly check that their minimum age policies are adhered to, that there will be protection from groomers, that there will be safer feeds and that there will be an end to product testing on children.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Been announced today that social media companies will now have to robustly check that their minimum age policies are adhered to, that there will be protection from groomers, that there will be safer feeds and that there will be an end to product testing on children.

keep clutching at that last straw

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

keep clutching at that last straw

You're not saying that this is a bad move, surely?

I think that it would have been better to ban U16 or U18's from social media, but this was rejected by Parliament. By doing this at least younger children will be protected, so it's a fair compromise.

[Carth]

Yes, great idea, it's much like when those in power stopped us having coal fires & wood burners, scrapped all the coal fired power stations, spent £billions on Solar Energy and Wind Turbines, car manufacturers developed much cleaner internal combustion engines, and now people are virtually being forced to buy electric cars and those silly warm air pump things.


Has the planet stopped warming up yet?

Originally Posted by Carth

Has the planet stopped warming up yet?

Nope.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

Yes, great idea, it's much like when those in power stopped us having coal fires & wood burners, scrapped all the coal fired power stations, spent £billions on Solar Energy and Wind Turbines, car manufacturers developed much cleaner internal combustion engines, and now people are virtually being forced to buy electric cars and those silly warm air pump things.


Has the planet stopped warming up yet?

it has here it's bloody cold

[Carth]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

it has here it's bloody cold

Throw another lump of coal on the . . . oh wait, maybe it's gonna have to be an extra bar used on that 'oh so efficient' electric fire then.

[jem]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

You're not saying that this is a bad move, surely?

I think that it would have been better to ban U16 or U18's from social media, but this was rejected by Parliament. By doing this at least younger children will be protected, so it's a fair compromise.

"Been announced today that social media companies will now have to robustly check that their minimum age policies are adhered to, that there will be protection from groomers, that there will be safer feeds and that there will be an end to product testing on children.”

But that is all incredibly vague, just what constitutes a robust check? There will be protection from groomers - how? There will be safer feeds - which means what? An end to product testing on children - again, what does that mean, is it even a thing?

It’s not a bad move in itself, it's just a completely ineffective move. It will achieve nothing. It all comes around to the problem of age verification - just how do you prove that an individual is an adult (for arguments sake)? Well you have to turn over all sorts of personal information to some third party (which may or may not have ties to senior government officials) and whose security may well be as leaky as a sieve. I can just imagine the fallout from when (when not if) one of these providers gets hacked and all of their data stolen and the hackers now have the information that say, one Richard.Coulter has a login for ‘Spanking-Nuns-Monthly.com’, or whatever!

You can see the actually problem here?

OK look, I’m sure the vast majority of posters on here, do share your concerns about the impact of social media on children. And there is one excellent way of addressing it - education, ideally by the parents but by schools as well.

Vague legislation, will do nothing, education will.

Originally Posted by jem

"It will achieve nothing. It all comes around to the problem of age verification - just how do you prove that an individual is an adult (for arguments sake)?

More to the point here, how do you prove someone is 13, as opposed to 12. Request more personal information on kids now ?