Online Safety Bill Etc

[nomadking]

Social media sites are just an example.
These are the definitions.

Specifically, the rules cover services where:

• people may encounter content (like images, videos, messages or comments), that has been generated, uploaded or shared by other users. Among other things, this includes private messaging, and services that allow users to upload, generate or share pornographic content. The Act calls these ‘user-to-user services’;
• people can search other websites or databases (‘search services’); or
• you or your business publish or display pornographic content.

That would include this and so many other harmless forums and websites.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

No, you made no such distinction ..

No one here is a mind reader, if you mean "social media sites" then you need to say so.

With hindsight I probably should have done, but I sometimes make mistakes or there are oversights because, as you know, I am neuro diverse.

---------- Post added at 16:17 ---------- Previous post was at 16:13 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Social media sites are just an example.
These are the definitions.
That would include this and so many other harmless forums and websites.

Thanks for the clarification, as I mentioned earlier, I wasn't sure if this only applied to sites such as Snapchat, Facebook etc (as this has been the main focus of the regulator), or if it includes all user to user sites.

[RichardCoulter]

Tech Life looks forward to the Online Safety Act in 2025:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct5wnb

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Social media sites are just an example.
These are the definitions.
That would include this and so many other harmless forums and websites.

The definitions from my understanding are also wide sweeping, one of the football forums I’m on is seriously considering closing down their forums because of the severe amount of work required and cost/time required to moderate.

Meanwhile the massive social media providers will get away with it

---------- Post added at 16:48 ---------- Previous post was at 16:46 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

With hindsight I probably should have done, but I sometimes make mistakes or there are oversights because, as you know, I am neuro diverse.

Are you ? You’ve never mentioned it mind you……

Isn’t that what your facilitators are there for ?

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

The definitions from my understanding are also wide sweeping, one of the football forums I’m on is seriously considering closing down their forums because of the severe amount of work required and cost/time required to moderate.

Meanwhile the massive social media providers will get away with it

---------- Post added at 16:48 ---------- Previous post was at 16:46 ----------


Guess censorship is going to need being redefined . However whom will check the censor, and will they be prosecuted if the courts decides they missed something, or is it only the posters that will be in the soup ?

Are you ? You’ve never mentioned it mind you……

Isn’t that what your facilitators are there for ?

[RichardCoulter]

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...or-negotiation

Tech giants told UK online safety laws ‘not up for negotiation’

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...or-negotiation

What this government says and what it does are completely different. You can bet they will change their tune over the next year as more and more big company's start to look elsewhere.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...or-negotiation

The UK doesn't look like it has much clout to 'negotiate' anything just lately. I'm sure it'll either be watered down or kicked into the long grass. Or it'll go ahead and and we'd all be penalised due to the draconian rules to help the very small minority snowflakes.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Sirius

What this government says and what it does are completely different. You can bet they will change their tune over the next year as more and more big company's start to look elsewhere.

The Government tech boss said on this mornings 'Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg' that it was a privilege and not a right for websites to do business with the UK and that to do so, they must follow our rules.

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:15 ----------

Originally Posted by peanut

The UK doesn't look like it has much clout to 'negotiate' anything just lately. I'm sure it'll either be watered down or kicked into the long grass. Or it'll go ahead and and we'd all be penalised due to the draconian rules to help the very small minority snowflakes.

Would you call the children who have committed suicide as a result of harrassment/abuse/bullying/malicious etc posts 'snowflakes'?

Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly took her own life because of this, wants the existing measures to primarily protect children and vulnerable people to be strengthened.

Unless other serious laws were broken, you and others
wouldn't be penalised as penalties will be directed at website owners/managers.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The Government tech boss said on this mornings 'Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg' that it was a privilege and not a right for websites to do business with the UK and that to do so, they must follow our rules.

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:15 ----------



Would you call the children who have committed suicide as a result of harrassment/abuse/bullying/malicious etc posts 'snowflakes'?

Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly took her own life because of this, wants the existing measures to primarily protect children and vulnerable people to be strengthened.

Unless other serious laws were broken, you and others
wouldn't be penalised as penalties will be directed at website owners/managers.

I can't really comment on specific people. I don't think I can just blame the internet. Parents do have a responsibility as well as the child/person/user. These days it's all about blaming everyone and everything else other than themselves or the actual root causes.

Children today are just not equipped to handle life stresses these days.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by peanut

I can't really comment on specific people. I don't think I can just blame the internet. Parents do have a responsibility as well as the child/person/user. These days it's all about blaming everyone and everything else other than themselves or the actual root causes.

Children today are just not equipped to handle life stresses these days.

Strangely I thought parents were supposed to be in charge. Seems that today it's the other way round. Just glad I am past this situation.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Would you call the children who have committed suicide as a result of harrassment/abuse/bullying/malicious etc posts 'snowflakes'?

Bullying has always existed.
You seem to keep forgrtting this.
Real bullying, not words on the internet.

There is a saying that come to mind, that still applies.
"Sticks & stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me".

No one is forced to read internet "posts".
99% of those that do are still alive, they dont go killing themselves.

Ian Russell ... wants the existing measures ... to be strengthened.

I dont. So there you go, we cancel each other out.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

Bullying has always existed.
You seem to keep forgrtting this.
Real bullying, not words on the internet.

There is a saying that come to mind, that still applies.
"Sticks & stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me".

No one is forced to read internet "posts".
99% of those that do are still alive, they dont go killing themselves.


I dont. So there you go, we cancel each other out.

That saying is the most inaccurate saying ever. Bullying/harrassment can cause PTSD. anxiety, depression etc. Sexually abusive posts often leads to drug/drink abuse or mental health problems when the child becomes an adult.

The last Government took out the 'legal, but harmful' clause for adults (it still applies to children) and there are calls for it to be put back in.

Don't forget that children don't have the mental capacity to deal with all this.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

That saying is the most inaccurate saying ever. Bullying/harrassment can cause PTSD. anxiety, depression etc. Sexually abusive posts often leads to drug/drink abuse or mental health problems when the child becomes an adult.

The last Government took out the 'legal, but harmful' clause for adults (it still applies to children) and there are calls for it to be put back in.

Don't forget that children don't have the mental capacity to deal with all this.

I am sure children in the past managed to get over it.l now I did.and that was face to face, if you count heads in the jon perhaps the answer is keep them away from smart tec.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

That saying is the most inaccurate saying ever.

No, it isnt.

---------- Post added at 21:41 ---------- Previous post was at 21:38 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The last Government took out the 'legal, but harmful' clause for adults (it still applies to children) and there are calls for it to be put back in.

Yet more nonsense.
There are always calls from the nannys who would like to control everything.

Drinking water is legal, but potentially harmful, I suppose we should ban that as well.