Online Safety Bill

[Stephen]

Thing is, most people go for the free speech thing all the time and feel they can say anything they want and not have to limit what they say to what's right or wrong. Social media has been like that for years, op3nly being discriminatory, abusive or down right racist.

So whether anyone may or may not have any mental issues just complicates things further. People believe they are right all the time and don't have to answer for anything. So having online safety bills or rules is just pointless in some respects. Most big social media sites have points in their t&Cs that what people post is their responsibility and the site doesn't take and ownership of what is posted by users.

The Internet is just a mess.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

How would you deal with neuro diverse people if they behaved innapropriatey (even if they couldn't help it or didn't know that they were causing problems) whilst remaining compliant with the Equality Act?

Dealing with such issues is straight forward from a site owner's / moderators point of view. Such as warnings, deleting, breaks, and then banning. It's when the person with the issues can't handle the responses due to their own actions / posts which is more of an issue. Then the threats of legal actions and cries of discrimination just makes it all worse for everyone.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Thing is, most people go for the free speech thing all the time and feel they can say anything they want and not have to limit what they say to what's right or wrong. Social media has been like that for years, op3nly being discriminatory, abusive or down right racist.

So whether anyone may or may not have any mental issues just complicates things further. People believe they are right all the time and don't have to answer for anything. So having online safety bills or rules is just pointless in some respects. Most big social media sites have points in their t&Cs that what people post is their responsibility and the site doesn't take and ownership of what is posted by users.

The Internet is just a mess.

Yes, I agree. Some people are used to just saying whatever floats into their mind without thinking or caring about the consequences for others (and now
themselves).

The Online Safety Act now puts the responsibility for what's posted firmly onto site owners and moderators and supercedes any previous t&c's that conflict with this.

It's very selfish for people to post innapropriate things because they can now also get other people into trouble by way of fines or even imprisonment, even though these individuals didn't post the offending material, agree with it or even 'like' it.

In fact, the law now expects those responsible for the administration of websites to be proactive in dealing with innapropriate posts, even before they have been brought to their attention or flagged up in some way.

I remember during the consultation a gentleman saying "If this goes through, people will have to think about it before
they post something" and that's exactly what it's designed to do.

---------- Post added at 21:58 ---------- Previous post was at 21:43 ----------

Originally Posted by peanut

Dealing with such issues is straight forward from a site owner's / moderators point of view. Such as warnings, deleting, breaks, and then banning. It's when the person with the issues can't handle the responses due to their own actions / posts which is more of an issue. Then the threats of legal actions and cries of discrimination just makes it all worse for everyone.

Yes, it may prove to be difficult to deal with a neuro diverse person in the same way as a non neuro diverse person in order to prevent innapropriate posts being uploaded to comply with the Online Safety Act and run a website in a proper manner because, if a person is disabled, adjustments have to be made to reflect their disability.

I did think that any relevant disabilities could be highlighted upon sign up, but jfman makes some fair points as to why this isn't such a good ides.

Some laws do conflict though. For example, a man built a structure without planning permission, so the local authority ordered him to demolish it.

Meanwhile, a number of bat's had made their home in the building. Another part of the council threatened him with legal action if he did demolish the structure as it would disturb the bats.

In the end the solicitor advised him to leave the building intact as the consequences for disturbing the bat's was more severe than the punishment for ignoring an order from the council to demolish a building built without planning permission.

Richard … you write at great length but you lack insight. Legislation such as this always makes allowances for the fact that different operators have different resources available to them. Reasonable steps in moderation on Facebook are simply not the same as reasonable steps on a volunteer-run discussion forum like Cable Forum.

If you think anyone here is going to jail if someone posts something you find offensive, and we don’t immediately spot it and take it down, you’re living in cloud cuckoo land. Personally, I would appreciate seeing a little less of the obvious glee you feel at the thought of the law making our task here harder than it already can be.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

Richard … you write at great length but you lack insight. Legislation such as this always makes allowances for the fact that different operators have different resources available to them. Reasonable steps in moderation on Facebook are simply not the same as reasonable steps on a volunteer-run discussion forum like Cable Forum.

If you think anyone here is going to jail if someone posts something you find offensive, and we don’t immediately spot it and take it down, you’re living in cloud cuckoo land. Personally, I would appreciate seeing a little less of the obvious glee you feel at the thought of the law making our task here harder than it already can be.

I take no glee at all, you're mistaken. The fines do take into account turnover because, as you say a million pound fine for facebook would be a minor inconvenience to them, but impossible to pay for a small website.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I take no glee at all, you're mistaken. The fines do take into account turnover because, as you say a million pound fine for facebook would be a minor inconvenience to them, but impossible to pay for a small website.

You’re still missing the point by a country mile. To get fined at all, you have to get found guilty first. To get found guilty you have to have failed to take *reasonable* measures to moderate offensive content. The test of what is *reasonable* varies depending on the resources of the website involved.

Small volunteer community websites do not have the same resources as Facebook. They are not, and will not be, required to act as if they do have the same resources as Facebook.

[RichardCoulter]

Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist and author. His work focuses on how smartphones & social media affects people's minds, thoughts & mental health.

He recognises how difficult things are for parents and says the fundamentals are:

-No smartphone until they are 14.

-Smartphones to be banned in schools.

-No social media until the age of 16 with legislation to enforce this if possible.

- Give them more independence & freedom in the real world.

His experiments show that adopting these norms are the best way for parents to fight social addiction and give them back a normal childhood:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...ist-and-author

[RichardCoulter]

TikTok are challenging the constitutionality of the new law to ban them from the USA unless they sell the company by 20/1/25.

America & the UK fear that the Chinese Government will use the platform for their own ends (they are believed to have very recently hacked into our MOD system containing details of personnel).

---------- Post added at 02:50 ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 ----------

Ofcom to require changes to be made to 'toxic' algorithms to comply with the Online Safety Act:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre...0plans%20today.

---------- Post added at 02:57 ---------- Previous post was at 02:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

You’re still missing the point by a country mile. To get fined at all, you have to get found guilty first. To get found guilty you have to have failed to take *reasonable* measures to moderate offensive content. The test of what is *reasonable* varies depending on the resources of the website involved.

Small volunteer community websites do not have the same resources as Facebook. They are not, and will not be, required to act as if they do have the same resources as Facebook.

Parliament sometimes passes laws using the word 'reasonable'. On the one hand it allows for common sense and fairness, but on the other it leaves what is 'reasonable' to be open to interpretation.

I'm told that what usually happens is that the relevant law is tested in the courts to establish a precedence. After this, case law is generally used to argue for or against the issue in any future litigation.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

He recognises how difficult things are for parents and says the fundamentals are:

-No smartphone until they are 14.

An arbitrary figure, I chose when they went to secondary school.

Smartphones to be banned in schools.

They’re Already banned in most schools, in mine they’re allowed to have them on their person but they’re not allowed to take them out whilst on school premises

No social media until the age of 16 with legislation to enforce this if possible

Depends what how you classify “social media” Mine only use WhatsApp and Roblox But watches YouTube.

Legislation to enforce a ban of u16 is unworkable

Give them more independence & freedom in the real world

ironically having the phone is what makes me comfortable to give them more independence, as I can see where they are and contact them as and when required.

His experiments show that adopting these norms are the best way for parents to fight social addiction and give them back a normal childhood:

What’s normal?

The childhood I had, or any adult had, is very different to childhood now for lot’s of reasons. Having a smartphone is “normal” for todays kids.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Parliament sometimes passes laws using the word 'reasonable'. On the one hand it allows for common sense and fairness, but on the other it leaves what is 'reasonable' to be open to interpretation.

I'm told that what usually happens is that the relevant law is tested in the courts to establish a precedence. After this, case law is generally used to argue for or against the issue in any future litigation.

In situations like these the legislation almost always uses terms like ‘reasonable’. It’s the reason why your small, local coffee shop in the village centre probably doesn’t have a wheelchair accessible toilet or ramped access - it is not reasonable to install such large, expensive, intrusive measures in a small building that lacks the space or the financial resources. In my favourite local seaside town almost none of the cafes have any toilet at all. This is reasonable; they are long established in Victorian and Georgian buildings and it would not be reasonable to expect them to undertake prohibitively expensive measures to comply with the general requirements of the law.

You seem to be hoping to cast doubt on the word ‘reasonable’ as something a small business owner - or, in this case, a small website - can dare to rely on as a defence in court. You are, as usual, wrong. The different levels of responsibility of business with different levels of resource is uncontroversial.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

In situations like these the legislation almost always uses terms like ‘reasonable’. It’s the reason why your small, local coffee shop in the village centre probably doesn’t have a wheelchair accessible toilet or ramped access - it is not reasonable to install such large, expensive, intrusive measures in a small building that lacks the space or the financial resources. In my favourite local seaside town almost none of the cafes have any toilet at all. This is reasonable; they are long established in Victorian and Georgian buildings and it would not be reasonable to expect them to undertake prohibitively expensive measures to comply with the general requirements of the law.

You seem to be hoping to cast doubt on the word ‘reasonable’ as something a small business owner - or, in this case, a small website - can dare to rely on as a defence in court. You are, as usual, wrong. The different levels of responsibility of business with different levels of resource is uncontroversial.

There was actually a case where a disabled person couldn't access a cafe because it had a few steps at the enterance. They couldn't install a ramp for the reasons you mention, so a discussion was arranged.

It was mutually decided that there was a third way that would satisfy both parties which was for a notice to be placed in the window asking anyone having trouble with the steps to ring the bell that had been installed below the notice and a member of staff would come outside to help them into the premises.

New builds are generally required to have disabled access, but one council required new pub licensees taking over existing premises to have a disabled toilet in place.

She did this, even though the bar was about six flights of steps from the ground floor!

It's not a problem now because the smoking ban made it impossible to do business on those premises, so she moved to new premises on the ground floor.

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 ----------

Forgot to mention earlier that as well as dealing with 'toxic algorithms', Ofcom will require robust age verification.

There is currently an issue with children joining adult websites such as dating sites. Those making sexual comments to them often use the fact that it is an over 18 site as a defence.

[nomadking]

How is giving firms access to copies of id more secure?
Why not tackle the dangerous content on mainstream media?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

There was actually a case where a disabled person couldn't access a cafe because it had a few steps at the enterance. They couldn't install a ramp for the reasons you mention, so a discussion was arranged.

It was mutually decided that there was a third way that would satisfy both parties which was for a notice to be placed in the window asking anyone having trouble with the steps to ring the bell that had been installed below the notice and a member of staff would come outside to help them into the premises.

New builds are generally required to have disabled access, but one council required new pub licensees taking over existing premises to have a disabled toilet in place.

She did this, even though the bar was about six flights of steps from the ground floor!

It's not a problem now because the smoking ban made it impossible to do business on those premises, so she moved to new premises on the ground floor.

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 ----------

Forgot to mention earlier that as well as dealing with 'toxic algorithms', Ofcom will require robust age verification.

There is currently an issue with children joining adult websites such as dating sites. Those making sexual comments to them often use the fact that it is an over 18 site as a defence.

Bereaved parents of eleven young people who lost children due to online activity say that the Ofcom measures announced today do not go far enough.

They have written an open letter criticising Ofcom. Ofcom said on BBC Breakfast that they are taking things slowly to make sure tjat they get things right and to ensure that there won't be any loopholes. They also want smartphones to be set up to be appropriate for children at the point of purchase.

---------- Post added at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

Bereaved Families for Online Safety sent their critical letter to both the PM & the leader of the opposition.

In other, equally surprising news, its been noted the sky often looks blue.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

There was actually a case where a disabled person couldn't access a cafe because it had a few steps at the enterance. They couldn't install a ramp for the reasons you mention, so a discussion was arranged.

It was mutually decided that there was a third way that would satisfy both parties which was for a notice to be placed in the window asking anyone having trouble with the steps to ring the bell that had been installed below the notice and a member of staff would come outside to help them into the premises.

New builds are generally required to have disabled access, but one council required new pub licensees taking over existing premises to have a disabled toilet in place.

She did this, even though the bar was about six flights of steps from the ground floor!

It's not a problem now because the smoking ban made it impossible to do business on those premises, so she moved to new premises on the ground floor..

Are you confusing disabled toilet and access facilities with wheelchair access? As not all disabled people need or use wheelchairs. Some may even be physically able to walk up and down stairs.