Online Safety Bill

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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.

Please tell me what illness or disability stops you from picking up the phone or using the app to contact an isp or mobile network to turn on parental controls.

The fact that parents don’t care or can’t be bothered does not make it the responsibility of the isp or site owner

It’s a legal requirement for children to be either in a suitable car seat or to use the seatbelt. But if a child doesn’t use either the vehicle manufacturer isn’t held accountable are they ? No, the parent gets the fine.

You’re talking utter absolute gibberish as per.

[peanut]

I think he's defending this bill no matter what anyone says. He's basically a one man crusade that just won't listen or have any answers put to him. It seems pointless responding to him.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Please tell me what illness or disability stops you from picking up the phone or using the app to contact an isp or mobile network to turn on parental controls.

The fact that parents don’t care or can’t be bothered does not make it the responsibility of the isp or site owner

It’s a legal requirement for children to be either in a suitable car seat or to use the seatbelt. But if a child doesn’t use either the vehicle manufacturer isn’t held accountable are they ? No, the parent gets the fine.

You’re talking utter absolute gibberish as per.

You're nonsense comments are moot as this is going ahead and has all party support.

The time to put any objections forward was during tje consultation period.

---------- Post added at 17:31 ---------- Previous post was at 17:24 ----------

Originally Posted by peanut

I think he's defending this bill no matter what anyone says. He's basically a one man crusade that just won't listen or have any answers put to him. It seems pointless responding to him.

This Act has all party support from people from all walks of life and countries abroard are planning similar measures

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

You're nonsense comments are moot as this is going ahead and has all party support.

The time to put any objections forward was during tje consultation period.

If this is going ahead then why are you still talking nonsense about it? Funny how you pull that card out when you’re put in a position you don’t like.Now, stop swerving and answer the question put to you?

I’ll bet you this bill doesn’t go ahead as stated, it will be that watered down it will be next to useless.

You’re like the politicians on this subject, clueless

[RichardCoulter]

As previously stated, it's no longer a Bill, it's now an Act of Parliament.

The first ever case of online rape inside a virtual reality video game has been referred to police for investigation.

The avatar of a little girl was sexually assaulted by a group of characters. Detectives believe that she was believed to have been wearing a headset and suffered the same psychological trauma as someone who had been raped in the realworld.

Sexual offending of both adults & children in virtual environments has become rife and cannot be allowed to continue.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

As previously stated, it's no longer a Bill, it's now an Act of Parliament.

The first ever case of online rape inside a virtual reality video game has been referred to police for investigation.

The avatar of a little girl was sexually assaulted by a group of characters. Detectives believe that she was believed to have been wearing a headset and suffered the same psychological trauma as someone who had been raped in the realworld.

Sexual offending of both adults & children in virtual environments has become rife and cannot be allowed to continue.

You can previously state as much as you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that this will be eventually watered down.


Can you point me to the legal definition of the offence of ‘online rape’ I’m unable to find one.

Can you also provide statistics as to how you reach the assement that it’s ripe ?

I think by you classifying someone as being sexually assaulted and using the term online rape you dilute/lessen the impact/severity of the offences that physically occur. Whilst the mental impact may be similar a virtual offence cannot for obvious reasons result in unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease or physical damage.

[RichardCoulter]

Further reading may now be found about the online rape as this has now been picked up by the media.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Further reading may now be found about the online rape as this has now been picked up by the media.

As requested please provide the link to the specific defined offence of ‘online rape’

If you could answer the other points too, please ?

[peanut]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

As requested please provide the link to the specific defined offence of ‘online rape’

If you could answer the other points too, please ?

Sounds more like a moralistic vs legality issue.

Personally I'm struggling with it all, certain people should just refrain from using the internet and just bubble wrap themselves. Richard included.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by peanut

Sounds more like a moralistic vs legality issue.

Personally I'm struggling with it all, certain people should just refrain from using the internet and just bubble wrap themselves. Richard included.

I think the media have defined the term ‘online tape’ to sensationalise with their actually being no specific actual offence of that nature.

Am I going to get investigated for shooting someone in call of duty and causing them to ‘die’ will that be ‘online murder’ ?

Or perhaps ‘online manslaughter’ for accidentally running over someone in GTA V or ‘online armed robbery’

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

As previously stated, it's no longer a Bill, it's now an Act of Parliament.

The first ever case of online rape inside a virtual reality video game has been referred to police for investigation.

The avatar of a little girl was sexually assaulted by a group of characters. Detectives believe that she was believed to have been wearing a headset and suffered the same psychological trauma as someone who had been raped in the realworld.

Sexual offending of both adults & children in virtual environments has become rife and cannot be allowed to continue.

So let me get this right.

A person partaking in a VR video game started getting raped (virtually) and carried on with the game instead of shutting it down (if not earlier)? I would think that person had a psychological problem to begin with.

What has happened to common sense in this world? Why does no-one accept the consequences of their own actions?

I think I've found the evidence that Richard has based his post upon.

In Horizon Worlds, Personal Boundary is default on at almost four foot for non-friends to make it easier to avoid unwanted interactions. We don’t recommend turning off the safety feature with people you do not know. We want everyone using our products to have a good experience and easily find the tools that can help in situations like these, so we can investigate and take action.

About an hour into using the platform, a SumOfUs researcher was led into a private room at a party where she was raped by a user who kept telling her to turn around so he could do it from behind while users outside the window could see – all while another user in the room watched and passed around a vodka bottle

The SumOfUs researcher noted how quickly she encountered sexual assault on the platform after another user encouraged her to disable the personal boundaries setting.

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/r...-b2090491.html

[peanut]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I think the media have defined the term ‘online tape’ to sensationalise with their actually being no specific actual offence of that nature.

Am I going to get investigated for shooting someone in call of duty and causing them to ‘die’ will that be ‘online murder’ ?

Or perhaps ‘online manslaughter’ for accidentally running over someone in GTA V or ‘online armed robbery’

What you say is the argument. Would you call the police to say you've been shot in a game. How do you define rape in VR. Okay you might have the use of hands attached to your avatar within VR (I use VR a lot). But you don't have appendages etc. So does continuously moving back and forth with your avatar onto another avatar is that now is classed as rape?? It is insulting to those that are the real victims of such crimes.

I don't agree with verbal abuse online, or in any game or whatever but that is rife but it's just noise that you can just ignore. But within VR all you need to do is log out, or take off the headset if it becomes an issue. But where there's blame there's a claim for some.

[Sirius]

Whatever happened to the on - off button. Is it not a thing anymore. ?

Originally Posted by Sirius

Whatever happened to the on - off button. Is it not a thing anymore. ?

Apparently not.

The first ever case of online rape inside a virtual reality video game has been referred to police for investigation.

Ridiculous, as already noted above, there is no such offence, and absolutely nothing physical happening, the whole point of VR is its not real - and you can simply turn off the VR/Game. As everyone has been saying from the start, this bill is complete nonsense, wasting police time that should be used to investigate real crimes.

Reading above there are even settings in the game to stop interaction - "personal boundaries setting", which you would have to disable.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Paul

Apparently not.



Ridiculous, as already noted above, there is no such offence, and absolutely nothing physical happening, the whole point of VR is its not real - and you can simply turn off the VR/Game. As everyone has been saying from the start, this bill is complete nonsense, wasting police time that should be used to investigate real crimes.

Reading above there are even settings in the game to stop interaction - "personal boundaries setting", which you would have to disable.

Which Pip stated above were disabled by player despite the reccomendation from the company.

That being said someone should be able to play any game without fear of harassment, however rape/sexual assault this is not