Online Safety Bill

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

"He believes…"

I have no reason to disbelieve the members of the panel (one a national broadcaster) who supplied these examples amongst others.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Examples of where porn has been stumbled upon include a search for 'Spice girls' and 'Bigger women fashion'.

I call B/S. I just did a seach of both, very disappointing, no porn.

[ ... and what child these days is even searching for 'spice girls', I'd bet the majority of have never even heard of them, they date from 25+ years ago ].

Actually, for that matter, what child searchs for 'Bigger women fashion' ?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Paul

I call B/S. I just did a seach of both, very disappointing, no porn.

[ ... and what child these days is even searching for 'spice girls', I'd bet the majority of have never even heard of them, they date from 25+ years ago ].

Actually, for that matter, what child searchs for 'Bigger women fashion' ?

Yep just done the same search and found nothing. Yep complete bull excreta based on my search.

I even searched on "spicy girls" - still nothing it just returned stuff for the spice girls.

I wonder if the panel members previous searches influenced their search results?



Update - I searched in both of terms mentioned by RC, and the first 50 returns were for each term were "family friendly" ; got bored after that…

[nomadking]

Search engines nowadays are more discerning than those of the past(Altavista, Webcrawler).

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Search engines nowadays are more discerning than those of the past(Altavista, Webcrawler).

I do miss those early days, I remember a friend was a self employed electrician at the time and searching his company name (on Hotbot???) returned all sorts of stuff including porn and most of it was unrelated to his business or electrical installation in any way.

[RichardCoulter]

Melanie Dawes is determined to protect children from being exposed to pornography, whether purposefully or accidentally, and measures will be introduced to prevent this.

The media picked up on this today and have dubbed it as the 'Passport to porn'.

Ofcom has no problem with adults viewing appropriate pornography if that is what they wish to do, but children must be protected from such material.

Other vulnerable groups will be considered in due course, but children have been made a priority so protective measures are being brought in for them first.

Almost no porn sites are based in the UK, so what "measures" ?
Good luck telling sites in other countries how to run, just because some MP in the UK decided they know better.

Other "vulnerable groups" ? Such as who exactly ?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul

Almost no porn sites are based in the UK, so what "measures" ?
Good luck telling sites in other countries how to run, just because some MP in the UK decided they know better.

Other "vulnerable groups" ? Such as who exactly ?

Wonder if it might be easier for site owners to just ban vulnerable groups and users once they become known, might save them some tedious aggravation further down the line

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Wonder if it might be easier for site owners to just ban vulnerable groups and users once they become known, might save them some tedious aggravation further down the line

That's what i hope, make friverlus complaints and your gone, no more issues

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Not all parents have the will or capability to utilise these tools and their children deserve to be protected too.

Examples of where porn has been stumbled upon include a search for 'Spice girls' and 'Bigger women fashion'.

And there in lies my point

The parent is primarily responsible for the child’s safety if they can’t be arsed to do it or to learn how to do it that’s on them. It is not the job of an isp or site owner to make up for a lack of parental responsibility or capabilities

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

And there in lies my point

The parent is primarily responsible for the child’s safety if they can’t be arsed to do it
or to learn how to do it that’s on them. It is not the job of an isp or site owner to make up for a lack of parental responsibility or capabilities

In an idral world, I would agree with you, but there may be many varied good reasons why they aren't able to do this. Even if there isn't their children must still be protected.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

In an idral world, I would agree with you, but there may be many varied good reasons why they aren't able to do this. Even if there isn't their children must still be protected.

Such as ?

You explicitly stated those that can’t be bothered and this that don’t know how too they are not good reasons

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Such as ?

You explicitly stated those that can’t be bothered and this that don’t know how too they are not good reasons

Yes they are. Parents may lack intelligence or education or have debilitating illnesses/disabilities Some may simply hold the view that they don't care or can't be bothered.

These children need to be protected from exposure to harmful images etc. In fact, it's these children that will ultimately benefit from this legislation as those with parents who use parental controls etc are less likely to see pornography.

Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, but shops tjat sell these products are obliged to take steps to try and protect them getting into the hands of children.