Online Safety Bill

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Good point. One parent in a previous link
apologised to their now adult children for buying them smartphones as children after explaining that, at the time, he simply wasn't aware of the damage that they could do or how addictive they could be.

I wondered what their children thought of that?

Pussies.

---------- Post added at 08:23 ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This programme looks at the indifference by social media companies regarding the deaths of children due to their inaction.

Deny, delay & deflect seems to be their strategy, but a psychologist says he lost sleep for weeks after viewing some if the posts in question.

The coroner for one child says that these posts affected her mental health in a negative way and contributed to her death in a more than minimal way (suicide.)

Generative AI is a new threat on the horizon as it can sound and act like a human, but it just "spews lies" and is said to be a threat to democracy. A Nobel Peace Prize journalist said that she was worried in 2016, but that 2024 will be a tipping point and elections could be impacted by this. She days she's gone from being a passionate supporter of new technology, to a skeptic and is now an activist against it.

The programme asks if, after 20 years, Silicon Valleys radical experiment to connect the world about to implode.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001xlsl

Surely the answer is to modify the current arrangements so that the people who upload this stuff can be identified, banned and where appropriate, prosecuted.

The online safety legislation puts impossible obligations on social media companies to remove these posts as soon as they appear. How on Earth do you make that work?

Talk about a cask-handed way of tackling a problem!

[peanut]

If it gets too much then they could make the minimum age required to use social media to something like 18. If any child is affected by content then the responsibility lies with the child or the parents only.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

Right, because no "child" wanting access ever puts in a false DOB.

If children gain access by lying (and no age verification is legally required) and something terrible happened as a result, this would be a defence by the website as to why an under age child was on their platform.

Every website that ever asks me for my DoB gets a false one, unless it’s a legal requirement for them to have it. I don’t trust any website to be secure in the long run so I don’t give information that makes identity theft that much easier.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

Every website that ever asks me for my DoB gets a false one, unless it’s a legal requirement for them to have it. I don’t trust any website to be secure in the long run so I don’t give information that makes identity theft that much easier.

I do too for the same reasons. Not sure if children would think to do this, but they'd be advised to.

However, if they create an age that gives them access to a site that they shouldn't be on then this can cause problems for them further down the line.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I do too for the same reasons. Not sure if children would think to do this, but they'd be advised to.

However, if they create an age that gives them access to a site that they shouldn't be on then this can cause problems for them further down the line.

No, Richard, this is completely the wrong approach. Simply deny the right of children to have access to social media until they are of a suitable age. Oh, wait...parents can do that already! Well, well.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I do too for the same reasons. Not sure if children would think to do this, but they'd be advised to.

However, if they create an age that gives them access to a site that they shouldn't be on then this can cause problems for them further down the line.

I have actively encouraged my kids to give a false DoB, not to get round age restrictions but simply for data security.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

I have actively encouraged my kids to give a false DoB, not to get round age restrictions but simply for data security.

Not that they need any encouragement, Chris. They're not stupid. Stupidity seems to be reserved for the majority of adults, sadly.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No, Richard, this is completely the wrong approach. Simply deny the right of children to have access to social media until they are of a suitable age. Oh, wait...parents can do that already! Well, well.

If all parents were to take an interest & and had the technical knowledge to adequately police their children's activity on the internet, then most problems could be resolved before they got out of hand.

Unfortunately, some don't/aren't and their children deserve protection too.

[RichardCoulter]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-68688133

Scotland's new hate crime law has come into force. The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act criminalises threatening or abusive behaviour intended to stir up hatred based on certain characteristics - including age, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity.

It's been criticised for not including incidents based on gender.

From on online point if view I think this could become messy as someone breaking this law has to post their remarks whilst in Scotland. If they live near the border, they could simply drive into England to do it and someone in Scotland could post something that is unlawful that wouldn't be in England, NI or Wales!

Will websites be required to note the location of contributors in order to assess if a user has broken the law or not? Accotding to Radio 4 this morning, the police have said that they will investigate all complaints.

I think that this could well be the first law since devolution that will affect people outside Scotland.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-68688133



It's been criticised for not including incidents based on gender.

From on online point if view I think this could become messy as someone breaking this law has to post their remarks whilst in Scotland. If they live near the border, they could simply drive into England to do it and someone in Scotland could post something that is unlawful that wouldn't be in England, NI or Wales!

Will websites be required to note the location of contributors in order to assess if a user has broken the law or not? Accotding to Radio 4 this morning, the police have said that they will investigate all complaints.

I think that this could well be the first law since devolution that will affect people outside Scotland.

A stupid crazy win for the minority snowflakes... What a waste of police time.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's been criticised for not including incidents based on gender.

I criticise it for specifying any characteristics. Why is threatening or abusive behaviour ever acceptable?

[pip08456]

This post on twitter (X) is hilarious and goes someway to explain the stupidity of the bill.

https://twitter.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/...20991188140135

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by pip08456

This post on twitter (X) is hilarious and goes someway to explain the stupidity of the bill.

https://twitter.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/...20991188140135

Yep that about sums it up.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

I criticise it for specifying any characteristics. Why is threatening or abusive behaviour ever acceptable?

It's not and it's against the law for someone to do this to anybody, as it should be.

I think that the Scottish legislators have recognised that certain members of society are more vulnerable to verbal & physical attack because of who they are.

Their hope is that this new law will make the perpetrators think twice before doing it or result in a more harsh sentence if the attack was in fact a hate crime.