Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[RichardCoulter]

I've just been watching an interview from todays This Morning programme. Mollys father and Michelle Donelan the Secretary for Culture, Media & Sport appeared together.

The Secretary for the DCMS said that this new approach to the harmful but legal content is actually better. She went on to say that the legal but harmful provisions would be retained for children.

For adults she said that websites would have to say whether they allowed legal, but harmful content. If they didn't allow it users would be protected, if they did the person then had an opportunity to block the site.

Instead of ignoring complaints, websites will now be obliged to remove illegal content or content that breaches their own terms & conditions.

Websites will also have to give users more control over what they see. Age verification was mentioned, so I assume that age verification will be required to ensure that under 18's aren't exposed to legal, but harmful content. She also said that young people today are tech savvy and know how to get around restrictions eg by lying about their age when registering.- age verification will allow websites owners to keep out under 18's and stop them from falling foul of the law by inadvertently exposing young people to inappropriate material. This is important when you consider that they could face substantial fines or even imprisonment for doing so.

Mollys father produced printouts of what had been sent to his daughter after she had found websites about suicide when researching the subject. Numerous messages were sent to her encouraging her to take her own life eg 'Nobody wans to date a suicidal girl'. On the face of it this remark is (currently) a legal, but harmful, thing to say to a suicidal girl.

Whilst he still thought that the Bill had been watered down, he accepted that this was necessary to ensure the Bill passed into law relatively quickly and that this was necessary in order to save future lives from being lost.

[RichardCoulter]

An interesting discussion on the Online Safety Bill from 0.20:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001h418

Key points-

- The Government is determined to get this through Parliament after the delays.

- The proposal to use prison sentences for non compliance by site owners has been put back into the Bill by MP's.

[RichardCoulter]

Is Everything OK at facebook?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct39vb

An interesting BBC programme that takes a look at the various problems faced by facebook.

It says that facebook actually welcomes regulation by Governments, as this stops it having to make decisions about what is acceptable content that it never wanted to make in the first place.

[Mad Max]

[RichardCoulter]

This mornings political show covered the Online Safety Bill and showed a report on the suicide of children as a result of sites that promote suicide:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001jwhr

It's about 2/3 of the way through.

[Itshim]

More hold handing , nanny state, whom can we blame. It's never my fault There is a simple word ,hardly ever used in child care today. NO. Perhaps parents should try it !! Guess we need to amend the saying " sticks and stone may break my bones but WORDS will REALLY hurt me.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Itshim

More hold handing , nanny state, whom can we blame. It's never my fault There is a simple word ,hardly ever used in child care today. NO. Perhaps parents should try it !! Guess we need to amend the saying " sticks and stone may break my bones but WORDS will REALLY hurt me.

Unless it's a lefty crock of you know what written by Sue Grey

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This mornings political show covered the Online Safety Bill and showed a report on the suicide of children as a result of sites that promote suicide:

You really dont get it do you (or you dont want to) - no one forces anyone to hunt out and find these sites (and yes, you have to go looking for them, they dont just magically load themselves into your browser).

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

You really dont get it do you (or you dont want to) - no one forces anyone to hunt out and find these sites (and yes, you have to go looking for them, they dont just magically load themselves into your browser).

People choosing to ask about suicide will come across them in searches. They are vulnerable and must be protected.

Also, once searched for, algorithms will keep suggesting such sites. They shouldn't exist in the first place.

Just been on the BBC 10pm news that about half of Twitter staff have either been let go or chosen to leave after Elon Musk bought it. Online abuse has rocketed.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

People choosing to ask about suicide will come across them in searches.

Exactly, they are choosing to do it, they are responsible for their own actions, no one else.

They are vulnerable and must be protected.

"vulnerable" - a term often misused by people who want to control and/or blame someone (everyone) else for their own actions.

They shouldn't exist in the first place.

Again, thats just your opinion. I can think of lots of sites that should not exist "in my opinion", but that doesnt mean everyone else should, or will, agree.

You must love the concept of 1984, everyone controlled by the thought police.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul

Exactly, they are choosing to do it, they are responsible for their own actions, no one else.


"vulnerable" - a term often misused by people who want to control and/or blame someone (everyone) else for their own actions.

I'd say a lot of people on the brink of taking their own lives are vulnerable and not responsible for their own actions, might be best if there weren't sites out there promoting and helping them to do it imo

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I'd say a lot of people on the brink of taking their own lives are vulnerable and not responsible for their own actions

Yes, many almost certainly are, spur of the moment, rash, emotional, unplaned actions or decisions.
However, thats not the same as someone going to the trouble of actually hunting out and visiting very specific websites.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

might be best if there weren't sites out there promoting and helping them to do it imo

It might be better if a lot of websites didnt exist (like social media sites in general).
The world would be much better off (IMO), but the fact is they do, we cant go back now.

The sad fact is humans have been taking their own lives for 1000's years, probably much longer.
Websites have existed for a very small fraction of this time, who was to blame before they existed ?
Do I think such sites serve any useful purpose ? No, I dont - but neither do I believe in nanny state thought control either.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul

Yes, many almost certainly are, spur of the moment, rash, emotional, unplaned actions or decisions.
However, thats not the same as someone going to the trouble of actually hunting out and visiting very specific websites.


It might be better if a lot of websites didnt exist (like social media sites in general).
The world would be much better off (IMO), but the fact is they do, we cant go back now.

The sad fact is humans have been taking their own lives for 1000's years, probably much longer.
Websites have existed for a very small fraction of this time, who was to blame before they existed ?
Do I think such sites serve any useful purpose ? No, I dont - but neither do I believe in nanny state thought control either.

I don't particularly like state over interference either but I think in this specific instance I'm okay with it, same as with that reality imbecile who is enjoying an extended stay at his majesty's expense for revenge porn, I'm okay with that too but in the main I don't like the vast majority of what I've seen about this bill

[peanut]

The only valid point for me is that certain sites / subjects should not be included within said certain algorithms'.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by peanut

The only valid point for me is that certain sites / subjects should not be included within said certain algorithms'.

What are certain sites and said algorithms?

Do you mean by that that all sites are permitted to exist but should not be indexed by search engines?