Online Safety Bill Etc

[nffc]

How exactly can material be removed from the internet?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by nffc

How exactly can material be removed from the internet?

Hidden from public view.

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:31 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

what if people download this material before it can be taken down

Hopefully such material won't go up in the first place.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Hidden from public view.

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:31 ----------



Hopefully such material won't go up in the first place.

That's not how the Internet works. Take it down and it just appears somewhere else.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Stephen

That's not how the Internet works. Take it down and it just appears somewhere else.

Exactly.


If they order it to be taken down then
1. sites like archive.org will probably have already crawled it
2. it will go somewhere else where it is either geoblocked or needs a login to see


Not to mention the people who have already either seen it or downloaded a copy for themselves.


It's impossible to block stuff like this, much as perhaps the content shouldn't be there to begin with, and Reeves is showing her lack of intellect by suggesting that it would work.


Ditto the OSA

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yes, it’s the fault of the internet, and Amazon and definitely nothing to do with the failure of any and all government agencies involved that did nothing…..……………..

It's been acknowledged by the powers that be that both contributed to this tragedy.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's been acknowledged by the powers that be that both contributed to this tragedy.

The only way Amazon could be at fault is that a knife was purchased from them which ended up with a 17 yr old, the irony being there if he'd waited a few days he would have been able to buy it legally anyway.


Given that when one purchases age restricted items on Amazon, their policy is that they have to hand it over to someone at the address who is over age.


So the questions which I'm not sure have been fully answered here are who purchased the knife? Was it under a 17 yr old's Amazon account in which case it should never have been allowed as the person purchasing it was not of age (which is what matters). And how was it delivered, was it signed for by him or his parents, what age verification was made there?


Something probably does need to be done here because the present system simply doesn't work. If someone ordered a bottle of whisky off Amazon and that person was over 18, paid for it, it was delivered but at the time because they were at work the only person in was their 15 year old child who had just got back from school, the delivery would fail, realistically this shouldn't be the case as much as it isn't their item and it's as much likely to get into their hands if they signed for it as if their parents did and then gave it to them. Verifying that the purchaser is of age before accepting the order should be mandatory (the first time an age restricted item is purchased) and then held as verified to purchase age restricted items moving forward. Then the items should just be delivered as normal.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by nffc

The only way Amazon could be at fault is that a knife was purchased from them which ended up with a 17 yr old, the irony being there if he'd waited a few days he would have been able to buy it legally anyway.


Given that when one purchases age restricted items on Amazon, their policy is that they have to hand it over to someone at the address who is over age.


So the questions which I'm not sure have been fully answered here are who purchased the knife? Was it under a 17 yr old's Amazon account in which case it should never have been allowed as the person purchasing it was not of age (which is what matters). And how was it delivered, was it signed for by him or his parents, what age verification was made there?


Something probably does need to be done here because the present system simply doesn't work. If someone ordered a bottle of whisky off Amazon and that person was over 18, paid for it, it was delivered but at the time because they were at work the only person in was their 15 year old child who had just got back from school, the delivery would fail, realistically this shouldn't be the case as much as it isn't their item and it's as much likely to get into their hands if they signed for it as if their parents did and then gave it to them. Verifying that the purchaser is of age before accepting the order should be mandatory (the first time an age restricted item is purchased) and then held as verified to purchase age restricted items moving forward. Then the items should just be delivered as normal.

Then, at the same time, we have situations where age restricted items are refused because someone clearly over 18 doesn't have any ID!

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Then, at the same time, we have situations where age restricted items are refused because someone clearly over 18 doesn't have any ID!

You mean like the "Challange 25" nonsense. The legal age for drinking in the UK is 18, not 25.
Years ago now my daughter was refused a drink (age was the excuse) and she was clearly older than 17 (she was actually about 23).

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Paul

You mean like the "Challange 25" nonsense. The legal age for drinking in the UK is 18, not 25.
Years ago now my daughter was refused a drink (age was the excuse) and she was clearly older than 17 (she was actually about 23).

My eldest is 37 he still gets asked for id to buy tobacco

[RichardCoulter]

I watched a lot of the programmes yesterday for Holocaust Memorial Day. I found it emotional, but also very educational as this was never taught at our school.

There were things that I wasn't aware of, including how it all started with lies, insults and misinformation about Jewish people. Had it existed then, i've no doubt that the internet would have also been used to do this, which just shows how important the words are that people use to degenerate and discriminate against disadvantaged and minority groups and why the concept of protected groups was established.

[RichardCoulter]

Just watching a programme that was on Channel 4 earlier about deepfakes that the Online Safety Act is to make illegal:

https://www.channel4.com/tv-guide/2025-01-28

One of the perpetrators agreed to an anonymous online interview. He said that, whilst he felt it was unethical, 'it is what it is', it's making money for him and that if he didn't do it, somebody else would. This is similar to what drug dealers, people traffickers etc say.

He went on to say that, even when made illegal, he doesn't think that it will stop and that the AI is now becoming so advanced that it will soon be possible to create people participating in sex acts on video, just by using a photo of their face.

Interestingly, when they asked AI to produce a deepfake of a (consenting) man, it did it, but it produced an image with a man's legs & face, but the rest of it was of a female body, complete with large breasts!

I think that this goes to show that it has been ingrained into the AI software that.the naked images that it is asked to produce are predominantly about the female form and that it cannot accept that a deepfake image can be created without the inclusion of female genitalia.

The presenter concluded that this demonstrated that it's not about humiliating or disrespecting people, it's about doing this to women.

They "conclude" what they want to conclude, to suit their story/agenda.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's unfortunate that the Online Safety Act provision whereby Ofcom are able to order websites to take down material doesn't come in until March.

The murderer of those little girls in Southport had been reading inappropriate material, such as white genocide, before he went out and committed these heinous crimes.

The Government has asked the user to user sites to do so voluntarily, so let's hope that they defy convention and have
the decency to do so.

Unfortunately, but as expected, the Home Secretary said this morning that much of this material, including an Al-Qaeda training manual, has not been taken down.

She went on to say that, if the Online Safety Act didn't deal with this as expected, that the law would be strengthened.

No doubt these sites will then start whining that their right to publish free speech has been curtailed.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Unfortunately, but as expected, the Home Secretary said this morning that much of this material, including an Al-Qaeda training manual, has not been taken down.

She went on to say that, if the Online Safety Act didn't deal with this as expected, that the law would be strengthened.

No doubt these sites will then start whining that their right to publish free speech has been curtailed.

Why would sites (especially if they are not in the UK) take down content just because Mrs Balls whines about it?


And why does she think people won't simply find another method to distribute the content where she can't see it?


Yet another politician showing their naivety and ignorance of how a global resource works.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by nffc

Why would sites (especially if they are not in the UK) take down content just because Mrs Balls whines about it?


And why does she think people won't simply find another method to distribute the content where she can't see it?


Yet another politician showing their naivety and ignorance of how a global resource works.

No way will something be taken down that is on a server in another country. The Government can try to block it but that's what VPN's are for. If people want to see something they will find a way. Mrs Balls needs to be educated in the way the internet works instead of talking drivel.