No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online
Technology
34
Beiträge
26
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
It seems like they have replied and said they won't repel the act.
That was their initial response. When a petition reaches 10k signatures, it requires a written response from the gvt. When it hits 100k signatures, it requires a "debate" in parliament. This one has received the response, but has not yet been debated. The debates are often shams where the topic is tokenly brought up and then routinely dismissed. But it does at least require that they read the signed text.
In this case I think the argument is poorly made in the petition text. It does not even mention digital security, and the risk of a data leak for ID collectors.
-
You mean sharing their real identity with online companies who will sell and/or lose it to hackers doesn't make children sAfE oNLinE??!!?!11?!
Hopefully this will happen sooner than later and change people’s minds about the whole thing.
-
Indeed. Anybody but the biggies will have an impossible task trying to convince people to verify their ID, so all the smaller sites will switch to only allowing registration/sign-in through Google/Apple/MS's Oauth, and depreciate the username/password option. When "signing in with Google/whatever", Google will simply pass a flag "adult" along with authorizing. In the end, they become the gatekeepers for the whole web, collecting tremendous valuable data in the process and gaining even more power over your identity.
Always keep in mind that the small players will always take the easiest option, and the big players want more control.
Facebook are the same, been the same for years.
-
Hopefully this will happen sooner than later and change people’s minds about the whole thing.
Yeah, it won't be good, but it's going to happen eventually. Sooner is better.
-
It will make kids really good at bypassing the restrictions that get put in place, which will probably require them to go to some of the shadier places on the web, which could put them in more danger.
The people who made these rules don't understand the fundamental rule of the internet: any online restriction put in place, can be overcome with tools and knowledge that are also readily available on the Internet
Depressing as it is to think about, I honestly expect that the next step is going to be a ban on VPNs which tunnel out of the country. office vpns where you just connect to your corporate network wouldn't be affected, but anyone trying to appear in a different country will be acting illegally. This will obviously cause other problems but it's all in the name of PrOtEcTiNg tHe ChiLdReN so I'm sure that's next on the chopping block.
This is what happens when we have non-technical morons trying to regulate a technical industry.
-
I cannot think of a single recent “think of the children” based action that was intended to and actually helped the children in a meaningful way.
Are you judging the motivation purely based on the effects? Otherwise, how are you working out what goes on inside people's heads?
I think given that we all agree that there are voters who think this will protect children makes it crazy to think that politicians must somehow know better. It is well-accepted online that politicians are out-of-touch when it comes to technology, so it's not like they understand the subject of this article.
Are you judging the motivation purely based on the effects? Otherwise, how are you working out what goes on inside people’s heads?
A combination of the effects, the prior actions, reactions and consequences of the subject and others in similar categories/contexts (to the extent i actually know/pay attention).
I don't know of another way of performing predictive analysis.
Also that didn't answer the question.
I think given that we all agree that there are voters who think this will protect children makes it crazy to think that politicians must somehow know better. It is well-accepted online that politicians are out-of-touch when it comes to technology, so it’s not like they understand the subject of this article.
I'm genuinely not sure what you are saying here, but i'll go line by line, tell me if I'm reading it incorrectly.
I think given that we all agree that there are voters who think this will protect children makes it crazy to think that politicians must somehow know better.
I don't know what this means, there are voters who genuinely believe this, yes, i think i follow that bit.
I'm not sure what you think is crazy here (i'm not disagreeing, i just don't understand) , do you mean to say the politicians do or don't know better ?
It is well-accepted online that politicians are out-of-touch when it comes to technology, so it’s not like they understand the subject of this article.
This i agree with, i can also anecdotally add first hand experience of the consequences of such lack of understanding.
Not sure how it ties in to the other sentence though.
-
If they doing this might as well ban books also for harmful content to children:
No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online
Young people should be able to access information, speak to each other and to the world, play games, and express themselves online without the government making decisions about what speech is permissible. But in one of the latest misguided attempts to protect children online, internet users of all...
Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org)
Obviously not, but it's not like they're gonna be honest and call it the UK Online Spying Act.
-
That was their initial response. When a petition reaches 10k signatures, it requires a written response from the gvt. When it hits 100k signatures, it requires a "debate" in parliament. This one has received the response, but has not yet been debated. The debates are often shams where the topic is tokenly brought up and then routinely dismissed. But it does at least require that they read the signed text.
In this case I think the argument is poorly made in the petition text. It does not even mention digital security, and the risk of a data leak for ID collectors.
Every time one of these petitions comes up it's always badly worded. I still think that the stop killing games petition was badly worded and gave them an easy out.
-
Every time one of these petitions comes up it's always badly worded. I still think that the stop killing games petition was badly worded and gave them an easy out.
tbh the petition owner should be part of the parliament debate. at the very least to give a speech. I think that would be a very reasonable thing to accommodate, and would give a chance for the argument to be prepared and properly made. That would be very democratic.
-
I saw an interesting video suggesting that the real motivation is to give megacorps like Google a new business acting as "banks" for identity, i.e. the Internet would get so inconvenient that people would just save their identity with Google (or Meta, etc) and then use them to log in to other websites.
I probably explained it badly, but the video I saw is here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAd-OOrdyMw
People in the comments pointed out that those companies would also have the ability to delete or suspend your identity verification if you did something they didn't like (or refused to do something they wanted). Reminds me of the SIN from Shadowrun .
The other part is that christofascists really want to ban "porn" (read: anything they don't like), and they know age verification will make their operation almost impossible. The fact that corporations like Google might get to validate people they advertise to is a positive side effect.
-
tbh the petition owner should be part of the parliament debate. at the very least to give a speech. I think that would be a very reasonable thing to accommodate, and would give a chance for the argument to be prepared and properly made. That would be very democratic.
At the very least I wish these people would announce the wording of the petition in advance of filing the petition, so that it could be worked on. There are lawyers out there who are interested in this course I'm sure they could help, but unfortunately once the petition is filed that's the wording you have to go with even if it's inaccurate and loose in its definition.
-
If they doing this might as well ban books also for harmful content to children:
No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online
Young people should be able to access information, speak to each other and to the world, play games, and express themselves online without the government making decisions about what speech is permissible. But in one of the latest misguided attempts to protect children online, internet users of all...
Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org)
failure to comply could result in fines of up to 10% of global revenue or courts blocking services
So most federated platforms should be fine, as they don't have any revenue(usually) and blocking is hard because DNS is easy to bypass and there just are so many instances already.
-
failure to comply could result in fines of up to 10% of global revenue or courts blocking services
So most federated platforms should be fine, as they don't have any revenue(usually) and blocking is hard because DNS is easy to bypass and there just are so many instances already.
This might actually make people move to Lemmy nice.
-
-
-
Doctors are using unapproved AI software to record patient meetings, investigation reveals
Technology
1
-
-
-
Trump may launch Trump-branded mobile phone and a wireless service that could compete with the likes of Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile.
Technology
1
-
Tesla is trying to prevent the city of Austin, Texas, from releasing public records involving self-driving robotaxis
Technology
1
-
