UK Has Passed The Online Safety Bill

Oh this is done for the money. What wouldve been better is age restriction to the whole net, hopefully finding a way to make parents responsible for their children and what they do. But that means way less views and traffic for ads. Yes there's "YT Kids" and such but what being on the internet has taught me is absolutely every type of online service can be exploited and attacked.

I can understand parents wanting some help from official sides. They are hated no matter what they do: Controlling internet access, especially of their teenagers? Helicopter parenting, or parents on a power trip. Letting their children use the internet? Neglecting assholes. Sitting next to their teenagers while they use the internet? Overbearing creeps smothering their children and possibly jobless leeches.

Parents have to at least be able to trust content filters.

Can I ask where you got this info from? The article says the bill is 300 pages long. I'm never getting through all that.

Edit: the article also claims age verification for porn sites is still in there?

re your 2nd point, that's most certainly not been scrapped. The language has changed to basically say, they're aware thetech doesn't currently exist to do this but as soon as it does, it must be done. It's a temporary reprieve at best.

Don't worry, allmof that will be back on the table again next year, and then the next and the next, untill it passes.

Remember kids, if you want to be a good evil politician, you just keep pushing and pushing and pushing your evil shit until people tire and it passes.

This shit has been on the table at just about all governments since at least 2 decades. It just returns each year with a new name, same shit.

I hope they make this worldwide.

We recently passed a law that enables the UK to indefinitely detain adult and children refugees and asylum seekers. I'm sure they'll be building camps next.

This government has no morals.

England prevails.

It is a consistent embarrassment and detriment to the world.

The original intent - to stop kids accessing harmful content on big tech media sites was the sole original intent. That's now morphed into the legislative tool for mass surveillance that's just been passed. That original intent wasn't a Tory idea as such, but two researchers. The addition of more and more draconian elements most definitely was from the Tories. Including the red Tory currently leading the Labour party.

They are using the "good intentions" as cover for their ever expanding surveillance state. It is absolutely not the intention of this bill to provide "safety" for the citizens. It's to make sure that the citizens don't get too uppity and threaten their masters.

Ironic if most UK users just start using VPNs to access content no longer available in UK.

Probably means she’s believing what they told her!

As for the Tories I think this is the ideal extension to their snoopers charter.

I feel since she took over, Signal has been on a steady downward trajectory. Increasing the barriers to use, more centralization instead of federation, and the stupid fucking Stories feature.

Hmm surely vpn companies would have to start logging heavily now. It should be possible to have a backdoor by design. All I can trust is tor I think

They threatened to leave and the UK Gov called these companies bluff. They won't leave.

Kinda left out the important bits, quoted below

---

Platforms will also need to show they are committed to removing illegal content including:

child sexual abuse
controlling or coercive behaviour
extreme sexual violence
illegal immigration and people smuggling
promoting or facilitating suicide
promoting self-harm
animal cruelty
selling illegal drugs or weapons
terrorism

New offences have also been included in the bill, including cyber-flashing and the sharing of "deepfake" pornography.

And the bill includes measures to make it easier for bereaved parents to obtain information about their children from tech firms.

Online safety campaigner Ian Russell has told the BBC the test of the bill will be whether it prevents the kind of images his daughter Molly saw before she took her own life after viewing suicide and self-harm content online on sites such as Instagram and Pinterest.

Digital rights campaigners the Open Rights Group said the bill posed "a huge threat to freedom of expression with tech companies expected to decide what is and isn't legal, and then censor content before it's even been published".

Lawyer Graham Smith, author of a book on internet law, said the bill had well-meaning aims, but in the end it contained much that was problematic.

"If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, this is a motorway," he told the BBC.

He said it was "a deeply misconceived piece of legislation", and the threat it posed to legitimate speech was likely to be "exposed in the courts".

And popular messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal have threatened to refuse to comply with powers in the bill that would force them to examine the contents of encrypted messages for child abuse material.

Wikipedia has also said it can't comply with some of the requirements of the bill.

After royal assent the baton will pass to the communications regulator, Ofcom, who will be largely responsible for enforcing the bill.

It will draw up codes of conduct that will provide guidance on how to comply with the new rules.

Those who fail can face large fines of up to £18m, or in some cases executives could face imprisonment.

Kids using the ISP in their homes, using wifi in a public place etc.