Online Safety Bill

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The EU version of the forthcoming Online Safety Act is now going through. It's called the Online Services Act.

According to the BBC's Media Show, it's expected to affect the UK as EU legislation usually becomes a defacto global model, such as the GDPR. I'm assuming that this is because companies find it easier to work to a standard set of rules.

Which is why nobody cares about the UK Bill and it’ll be ineffective.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The EU version of the forthcoming Online Safety Act is now going through. It's called the Online Services Act.

According to the BBC's Media Show, it's expected to affect the UK as EU legislation usually becomes a defacto global model, such as the GDPR. I'm assuming that this is because companies find it easier to work to a standard set of rules.

The EU is implementing the Digital Services Act, and it differs in a crucial respect from the UK’s Online Safety Bill (it isn’t an Act until Parliament has passed it and it gets Royal assent). The EU measures do not attempt to force services to break their own encryption to allow GCHQ, MI5 or your local council to snoop on your WhatsApp account whenever they feel it necessary. In other respects it is similar in that that requires online service providers to do better at data profiling and dealing with inappropriate content or abuse of their services.

[jfman]

Quite timely our Government has watered down their proposals on end to end encryption.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...ption-ban.html

Originally Posted by jfman

Quite timely our Government has watered down their proposals on end to end encryption.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...ption-ban.html

The entire Westminster bubble operates on WhatsApp. Faced with Meta’s credible threat to exit the UK market el gov was always going to blink first. The fudge they’re now proposing is a contorted attempt to back down without being seen to back down, but it’s hard to see it in any other way. The measures as now drafted cannot currently be enforced because the technology doesn’t exist, and if those conditions were ever met then service providers can still make good on their threat to exit the UK. Presumably at this point the Tories are assuming it’ll be a Labour government that has to deal with that, at some point in the next 10 years or so.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

The entire Westminster bubble operates on WhatsApp. Faced with Meta’s credible threat to exit the UK market el gov was always going to blink first. The fudge they’re now proposing is a contorted attempt to back down without being seen to back down, but it’s hard to see it in any other way. The measures as now drafted cannot currently be enforced because the technology doesn’t exist, and if those conditions were ever met then service providers can still make good on their threat to exit the UK. Presumably at this point the Tories are assuming it’ll be a Labour government that has to deal with that, at some point in the next 10 years or so.

Definitely sounds like an episode of Yes, Minister! Tech companies are happy and the Minister is happy.

Ultimately, we'll end up following international/EU standards. We're too integrated with the Western world and frankly too small to be able to be an outlier on this matter.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

The EU is implementing the Digital Services Act, and it differs in a crucial respect from the UK’s Online Safety Bill (it isn’t an Act until Parliament has passed it and it gets Royal assent). The EU measures do not attempt to force services to break their own encryption to allow GCHQ, MI5 or your local council to snoop on your WhatsApp account whenever they feel it necessary. In other respects it is similar in that that requires online service providers to do better at data profiling and dealing with inappropriate content or abuse of their services.

We said earlier that the UK Government would probably fudge the issue to save face and that's exactly what they've done!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

We said earlier that the UK Government would probably fudge the issue to save face and that's exactly what they've done!

God bless their ineptitude.

Originally Posted by jfman

God bless their ineptitude.

Yes, its nice when they screw up in a good way

[tweetiepooh]

The spinning yarn would be that they have now taken into account other factors and after careful consideration and consultation made sensible modifications to the bill that, while does pose some challenges in some areas, best allows the UK to lead in the field of secure communications while at the same time making provision for the protection of some of the most vulnerable in our society.

[RichardCoulter]

Technology Secretary Michelle Donelan spoke about the latest on the Online Safety Bill on Tuesday.

She said that if websites fail to prevent innapropriate material from appearing, they will face huge fines and that some had already changed their behaviour.

With regards to children, the average age that they see pornography is 13 and that seeing innapropriate material had led some childten to take their own lives.

Moderators have said that they are having to check four things at once for eight hours a day, but, nevertheless, there will be zero tolerance of this material.

She spoke about the requirement for age verification that can be aided by AI & technology. If there is any doubt about someone's age, just like supermarkets when they sell age restricted products they will have to ask the individual for more information to prove their age.

2/3 of adults will be targeted by online fraudsters, so websites will be required to be proactive in preventing this.

It's about 15 mins in.

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/...mand/74264-197

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Technology Secretary Michelle Donelan spoke about the latest on the Online Safety Bill on Tuesday.

She said that if websites fail to prevent innapropriate material from appearing, they will face huge fines and that some had already changed their behaviour.

With regards to children, the average age that they see pornography is 13 and that seeing innapropriate material had led some childten to take their own lives.

Moderators have said that they are having to check four things at once for eight hours a day, but, nevertheless, there will be zero tolerance of this material.

She spoke about the requirement for age verification that can be aided by AI & technology. If there is any doubt about someone's age, just like supermarkets when they sell age restricted products they will have to ask the individual for more information to prove their age.

2/3 of adults will be targeted by online fraudsters, so websites will be required to be proactive in preventing this.

It's about 15 mins in.

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/...mand/74264-197

At 13, I was hunting that material, not trying to hide from it, which is pretty normal and healthy.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Technology Secretary Michelle Donelan spoke about the latest on the Online Safety Bill on Tuesday.

She said that if websites fail to prevent innapropriate material from appearing, they will face huge fines and that some had already changed their behaviour.

Moderators have said that they are having to check four things at once for eight hours a day, but, nevertheless, there will be zero tolerance of this material.

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/...mand/74264-197

And how the hell do they achieve that? How does anyone get any warning that such material is about to land on their sites?

And how will discussion forums like this one operate without flooding their sites with moderators?

This is so ill thought out, I find it difficult to understand how it’s got so far in the legislative process. The only way for websites to achieve this is to vet all material before it lands.

Good luck to the likes of X Corp (ex Twitter) and Meta (ex Facebook) with thousands of posts arriving every day.

Many, many more than that…

https://blog.wishpond.com/post/11567...t%20each%20day.

On average 350 million photos are uploaded daily to Facebook.
On average, there are 4.75 billion items shared by Facebook users each day.
10 billion Facebook messages are sent each day.
There are 4.5 billion Facebook likes every day.
Each minute there are 3,125,000 new likes.

And in May 2022

https://www.businessdit.com/number-of-tweets-per-day/

As of May 2022, every second, on average, around 10,033 tweets.

Or, 602,000 tweet sent per mintue

Or, 36 Million tweet sent per hour

Or, 867 Million tweet sent per day

Or, 26 Billion Tweet sent per months

Or, 361 Billion Tweet will be send this year

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

And how the hell do they achieve that? How does anyone get any warning that such material is about to land on their sites?

And how will discussion forums like this one operate without flooding their sites with moderators?

This is so ill thought out, I find it difficult to understand how it’s got so far in the legislative process. The only way for websites to achieve this is to vet all material before it lands.

Good luck to the likes of X Corp (ex Twitter) and Meta (ex Facebook) with thousands of posts arriving every day.

Couldn't agree more, this is as stupid as a law banning the wind from blowing.

[Sirius]

So today free speech was killed and laid to rest. The online safety bill has passed and all of the I will be offended for you because you should be offended but are not offended zealots will now have the time of the lives. I feel sorry for forum owners who will be inundated with petty little complaints. I just hope that any forum owner who has to deal with a constant list of complaints from the i am offended zealots will exercise there right to remove such zealots via the terms and conditions of the said forums.

As of today any new forums i join will be joined via a vpn and burner email address.


https://news.sky.com/story/online-sa...ntent-12965080