Reply to: Online Safety Act

[willendure]

Doesn't work for me. Just sits there doing nothing. No doubt due to BT.

Its never been quick, but it did eventually load...

[DoctorStrangelove]

Doesn't work for me. Just sits there doing nothing. No doubt due to BT.

[willendure]

Delighted to find the reason for some of my references in the book thread no longer working: the wayback machine / interweb archive thing is banned.

Fecking govermints.

Where's that Tor browser?

Oh, there it is.

Did not realize wayback machine is banned? In fact just tried it and it appears to be there: https://web.archive.org/

[ladymuck]

Imgur is no longer available in the UK, I see.

I never used to actually look at any of the content posted there generally but it was handy for uploading images to link to in posts.

[DoctorStrangelove]

Delighted to find the reason for some of my references in the book thread no longer working: the wayback machine / interweb archive thing is banned.

Fecking govermints.

Where's that Tor browser?

Oh, there it is.

[ladymuck]

Marvellous! Not necessarily directly linked to the OSA but it's a welcome reminder that using third parties for ages verification is a risk.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...sers-id-photos

Hack of age verification firm may have exposed Discord users’ ID photos

Names, email addresses and other contact details of about 70,000 global users could also have been taken

[hobnob]

so how does this bill stop that? By demanding that websites that promote suicide, self harm and terrorism instigate age checks?

Take a look at the link I posted on page 1:
Online Safety Act: explainer - GOV.UK

Basically, companies that host websites are now liable if they allow illegal content to be posted (such as the things you mentioned).

Any site that allows users to share content or interact with each other is in scope of the Online Safety Act. These laws also require sites to rapidly remove illegal suicide and self-harm content and proactively protect users from content that is illegal under the Suicide Act 1961. The Act has also introduced a new criminal offence for intentionally encouraging or assisting serious self-harm.

The Act also requires large services (Category 1 services) to uphold their terms of service where they say they will remove or restrict content or suspend users. If a service says they prohibit certain kinds of legal suicide or self-harm content the Act requires them to enforce these terms consistently and transparently. These companies must also have effective reporting and redress mechanisms in place enabling users to raise concerns about companies’ enforcement of their terms of service, if users feel that companies are not fulfilling their duties.

[teknokrat]

Thing is, the guys who are protesting about it because of porn, are skipping the bits about it also applying to websites that children would have access to that promote suicide, self harm and terrorism.

Should we prevent children from being exposed to sites trying to indoctrinate them into terrorism? Lord Toby Young (whose party brought the bill in the first place), Nigel Farage, and many others of their ilk think we should not prevent it. They will backtrack and say something different should be done, safe in the knowledge that they will never be asked to draft up the legislation to deliver the "something different", but can come up with some simple slogan to deflect from doing anything.

so how does this bill stop that? By demanding that websites that promote suicide, self harm and terrorism instigate age checks?

[willendure]

It's in section 236 in the legislation:

“pornographic content” means content of such a nature that it is reasonable to assume that it was produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal

It could in theory mean any content.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaQ-s_P5mwM

[ladymuck]

It's in section 236 in the legislation:

“pornographic content” means content of such a nature that it is reasonable to assume that it was produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal

It could in theory mean any content.

I hope that MP with the tractor fetish uses a VPN.

[Protagoras]

Ah, as with much recent legislation, drafted so poorly that it can cover a lot of ground and requires courts to establish boundaries.

Encouraging VPN use surely makes the role of policing national security more difficult since there's more traffic that's harder to monitor.

[m0n1k3r]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the government’s definition of pornography? From what I can gather it includes plain nudity. If that is the case, the government should be banning all harmful content such a war games and alike and not nudity which is natural.

It's in section 236 in the legislation:

“pornographic content” means content of such a nature that it is reasonable to assume that it was produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal

It could in theory mean any content.

[DoctorStrangelove]

So 4Chan are going to refuse to pay any fines. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq68j5g2nr1o

I can see plenty of others doing the same.

Of course. Only the Septics are allowed extraterritoriality.

[ladymuck]

Traffic to 4chan won't be affected. It's probably already accessed mostly via VPN anyway.

[willendure]

So 4Chan are going to refuse to pay any fines. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq68j5g2nr1o

I can see plenty of others doing the same.

So we probably end up with ISPs forced to block them by IP address. The "great wall" of Britain has begun.