Online Safety Bill Etc

[jem]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

One idea put forward is, during set up, for a child's date of birth to be input. This would only make adult sites available from a given age

Various judiciary systems throughout the world have confirmed that social media (and other) sites are responsible for having a duty of care for their users so, even if this measure were adopted, they would still need to make reasonable efforts to protect users.

a) define an ‘adult site’, yes Pornhub would probably apply, but Readit?

b) Who sets up the device? Is it a child who is given it as a present, who, I’m sure will enter their actual date of birth, or the parent who is firstly technically competent to do it, or is sufficiently tech-savvy to understand this stuff and have had the appropriate ’talks’ with their children.

Now ‘duty of care for their user’, except how can sites possibly know who or how old their users are, and whether or not they need protecting.

Which all circles round to age verification, and how do you do this without forcing everyone to hand over personal information to whoever provided the lowest tender bid - lowest for a good reason.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jem

a) define an ‘adult site’, yes Pornhub would probably apply, but Readit?

b) Who sets up the device? Is it a child who is given it as a present, who, I’m sure will enter their actual date of birth, or the parent who is firstly technically competent to do it, or is sufficiently tech-savvy to understand this stuff and have had the appropriate ’talks’ with their children.

Now ‘duty of care for their user’, except how can sites possibly know who or how old their users are, and whether or not they need protecting.

Which all circles round to age verification, and how do you do this without forcing everyone to hand over personal information to whoever provided the lowest tender bid - lowest for a good reason.

What sites children should not be able to access until a certain age (these may be different eg social media at 16, porn at 18) would have to be universally agreed upon, so that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.

It would be up to an adult to set the phone up, but we are then faced with the same problem if some parents not being capable if doing it or that they couldn't care less.

The legal cases surrounding 'duty of care' have involved users of all ages. The last one involving a child could equally apply to an adult:

A landmark legal battle in Los Angeles set a major precedent when a jury found Meta and Google liable for intentionally designing addictive algorithms that harmed a child's mental health, ordering them to pay \(\$6\text{ million}\) in damages.The landmark lawsuit centers on a young woman known as Kaley (or K.G.M.), who began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9.Case Details & Health ImpactsUsage: Kaley testified to spending up to 16 hours a day on the apps, driven by a cycle of seeking validation through likes and interactions.Mental Health: By age 10, she developed severe depression, anxiety, social phobia, and engaged in self-harm. She was also diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder, attributing her obsession with her appearance directly to the apps' editing filters.

The Verdict: The jury found the tech giants acted with "malice, oppression, or fraud," ordering $6 million in compensatory damages and \(\$3\text{ million}\) in punitive damages (Meta pays 70%, Google pays 30%).Global ImplicationsThis bellwether lawsuit is one of thousands winding through US courts, often likened to historic lawsuits against "Big Tobacco". While Meta and Google intend to appeal the verdict, the legal and public pressure is pushing governments globally to take action. Countries like Australia have moved to restrict or ban social media for users under 16, and the UK is running pilot programs to evaluate similar safeguards..

Meta and YouTube found liable in social media addiction trial27 Mar 2026 — Updated 27 March 2026. * Parents and campaign groups seeking tighter restrictions on social media have welcomed a Los Angeles jury handing down an unprecedented...BBCThe US social media addiction case and its implications27 Mar 2026 — The US social media addiction case and its implications. 27 March 2026 Technology. An expert comment piece written by Dr Hellen Mukiri-Smith of Loughborough Uni...Loughborough UniversityZuckerberg defends Meta in landmark social media addiction trial18 Feb 2026 — The case is one of thousands of similar lawsuits brought by families, state prosecutors and school districts currently winding their way through US courts. The ...BBCShe spent 16 hours a day on Instagram. Jury to decide if Meta is to ...14 Mar 2026 — Kaley had soon created dozens of accounts on both platforms in an effort to drive likes and interactions with the content she was posting – selfies on Instagram.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

What sites children should not be able to access until a certain age (these may be different eg social media at 16, porn at 18) would have to be universally agreed upon, so that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.

Again define what is an Adult site, who decides which site would be adult and which would not, who ever that is has a lot of sites to look at and determine if it is adult or not. If it is the site owner who would check they have designated the site correctly

Would you for instance class the BBC news website as adult, would you class Cable forum as adult or child safe.

What about sites that are hosted in country's that do not conform to the rules that are laid down. Do you then ask the ISP's to block those sites however remember that can be circumnavigated by using a simple free VPN and many of those are based in country's that do not have to follow the Online Safety Bill rules.

This is the latest on the toothless OFCOM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c624330lg1ko

Here is another question

If North Korea attempted to fine the BBC for allowing it's citizens to visit the BBC website - do you think the BBC would pay?

The only option will be to block it in the UK (which won't stop VPN users).

I honestly think this will lead to yet more data gathering via age checking. However even the age checking is easily circumnavigated by anyone with a little knowledge.

[RichardCoulter]

The Sunday Mirror (as per Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg) said earlier in a headline 'Kids Social Medua Ban Within Weeks'.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The Sunday Mirror (as per Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg) said earlier in a headline 'Kids Social Medua Ban Within Weeks'.

It will be interesting to see how that works.


Kids are already banned from buying alcohol but some still drink it, for example.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Again define what is an Adult site, who decides which site would be adult and which would not, who ever that is has a lot of sites to look at and determine if it is adult or not. If it is the site owner who would check they have designated the site correctly

Would you for instance class the BBC news website as adult, would you class Cable forum as adult or child safe.

What about sites that are hosted in country's that do not conform to the rules that are laid down. Do you then ask the ISP's to block those sites however remember that can be circumnavigated by using a simple free VPN and many of those are based in country's that do not have to follow the Online Safety Bill rules.

This is the latest on the toothless OFCOM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c624330lg1ko

Here is another question




I honestly think this will lead to yet more data gathering via age checking. However even the age checking is easily circumnavigated by anyone with a little knowledge.

If this idea came to fruituon, which sites are designated as being age restricted would have to be mutually decided upon either country by country or worldwide.

Social media sites and pornography will be easy to define, but I agree that others aren't as clear cut. This site is self defined as a family friendly site but, like you say, should the BBC News website be restricted? On the one hand it may feature images and descriptions of the horrors of war, but should we be restricting news to young people, simply because it's unpleasant?

---------- Post added at 10:33 ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 ----------

Originally Posted by nffc

It will be interesting to see how that works.


Kids are already banned from buying alcohol but some still drink it, for example.

Indeed, whatever measures they decide upon, there will always be some who manage to circumvent it. They could ban children from using/buying VPN'S, but some are free and they may be using their parents. Also, what about free WiFi that spills onto the streets? Would hotels etc wish to limit what their adult guests can access? If not, children could simply stand outside with their phones (assuming it wasn't password protected.)

[Carth]

It's no good trying to 'ban' anything, any one of us could compile a list of things 'banned' in this Country that are still being done regularly.

No matter how many times a child/young adult is warned about the dangers of doing something, there will be a certain percentage that still do it (look at deaths in water this week).

Unless we go full on 'North Korea' there isn't much we can do to stop 'bad things' on the internet without causing problems for everyone else.

[damien c]

Originally Posted by Carth

It's no good trying to 'ban' anything, any one of us could compile a list of things 'banned' in this Country that are still being done regularly.

No matter how many times a child/young adult is warned about the dangers of doing something, there will be a certain percentage that still do it (look at deaths in water this week).

Unless we go full on 'North Korea' there isn't much we can do to stop 'bad things' on the internet without causing problems for everyone else.

Getting closer and closer with each day!

Originally Posted by Carth

It's no good trying to 'ban' anything, any one of us could compile a list of things 'banned' in this Country that are still being done regularly.

No matter how many times a child/young adult is warned about the dangers of doing something, there will be a certain percentage that still do it (look at deaths in water this week).

Unless we go full on 'North Korea' there isn't much we can do to stop 'bad things' on the internet without causing problems for everyone else.

Banning "whatever" isn't about stopping something completely, it's about reducing the number of incidents of "whatever" is.

Banning drink-driving hasn't completely stopped drink-driving, but it has reduced the number of cases and the consequent mayhem caused - there were 1640 drink-driving fatalities in 1979, and 230 in 2019.

Health and Safety Laws at work haven't totally stopped deaths and injuries at work, but they have reduced the number of workplace deaths from 620 in 1974 to 124 in 2024.

Saying you can't fix everything so you shouldn't try to fix anything isn't really an optimal way of trying to progress things...