Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Fake news in Scotland. :D

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What you say is perfectly correct, what i'm referring to is the law pertaining to disabled people in general and how a one size fits all approach doesn't fit every situation, however well meaning it's intentions were.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

They're obviously keen that other parents don't go through what they have with the loss of a child and see stricter controls as a way to achieve this. It's remarkable that they can find the time and energy to do this at a time of bereavement, there again they may find this a useful way to deal with & channel their grief.

---------- Post added at 19:29 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

Latest Ofcom research shows that 27% of 3-4 year olds have a phone and 61% of 8-11 year olds have a phone. This figure rises to 90% for 11 year olds.

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:29 ----------

A concerning 50% of 3-12 year olds use at least one social media app. It's a paedophiles dream come true.

---------- Post added at 19:36 ---------- Previous post was at 19:34 ----------

61% of these report that they have been upset by messages that they have received.

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:36 ----------

61% of these report that they have been upset by messages that they have received. It's reported that a growing number of parents are joining the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign due to the social & emotional issues arising as reported by teachers & parents.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Whose fault is that? The parents bought the phones in the first place. Perhaps a bit of forethought may have made a difference.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Not sure if you mean the bereaved parents or the parents from the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign, but yes, some forethought wouldn't have gone amiss .

Either way I think that they want parents to consider the wider implications of allowing the children of today and the future to have access to a smartphone.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

You can hear one of the bereaved parents here about 15 mins in:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001yxfn

They are calling for a system where certain words that are used are flagged up. It should be technically doable as forums are able to identify bad language.

Some words eg sex are appropriate for adults in private messages, but not for children, so maybe they could cross reference with a person's age so that the system can decide whether to flag it up for attention or not.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

A lot could be said that it's just one side of the story from these parents. Blaming the internet etc, is that really 100% truthful?

I'm not saying the internet doesn't contribute, but then it's already been proven that one of these parents used it as an excuse rather than face up to other issues that aren't quite so clear. So in extreme cases it's easier to blame something like the internet than face up to other certain truths / failings / realities or blame.

I can't see the big social media companies really doing much about it as not always so quite clear cut. Parents have to take some responsibility, as do the child / user. If too many restriction, pampering, and shielding or whatever you call it, might help a bit but in the end then they won't last 5 mins in the real world. If all this continues, then if you think GenZs are snowflakes then it's only going to get a whole lot worse. And so will the consequences will be too.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I’m afraid that these days, everyone needs someone to take the blame - just not themselves. It’s deflection.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

The parents have said that children from a very young age now know more about the world of IT than them and know how to circumvent things like parental controls. One spoke of children accessing the dark Web.

They were happy to let their child go online thinking they would be safe, but this was not the case.

Some parents lack the knowledge to protect their children or, unfortunately, simply can't be bothered and these children need to be protected too, which is why it's essential that those making so much money out of it all should be putting in place safeguards. They failed to follow a voluntary code of practice, so now the Government has had to legislate to force them.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Dame Melanie Dawes, the Chief Executive of Ofcom, said on BBC News earlier that one of the sanctions for websites that fail to protect children is that they could be banned from having under 18's on their site.

This is hit on the heels of WhatsApp reducing their minimum age from 16 to 13 in line with other social media apps.

I wonder if some of them might find the new requirements too onerous (they've been able to get away with ignoring complaints, requests to take down posts, not being overly helpful in aiding the police trace users etc up until now) and may decide to raise their minimum age to 18, which wouldn't be a bad thing IMO. The new robust age verification requirement should keep children out and will help to keep adults out of sites aimed at children.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What is your obsession with this ?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Dunning-Kruger effect.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

‘ The new robust age verification requirement’

This keeps getting thrown about by politicians etc and not one of them can speak to what it is on what it will consist of they just keep repeating ‘ The new robust age verification requirement’

It won’t happen

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I think it'll be 'Are you 18?' - Yes or No. The robust part will mean that it'll come up with 'Are you sure'? - Just to be safe...

How many children actually have any kind of ID? A passport maybe.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Best question I have seen for age's :D