UK Online Safety Bill

[BeyondKnowledge]

Congress to the rescue! They can fix everything with the appropriate legislation!

How can they legislate anything about it when almost all of them don't even understand the problem or even that there is a problem?

[UltraBudgie]

How can they legislate anything about it when almost all of them don't even understand the problem or even that there is a problem?

Oh you sweet summer child... that's what lobbyists are for. To write the legislation and provide it to them so they can take credit for it.

[glen200376]

Do not use 'free vpn for chrome ' as mentioned by Andy.It has been shown to take screenshot of the users screen since this legislation started.

[andy06shake]

Do not use 'free vpn for chrome ' as mentioned by Andy.It has been shown to take screenshot of the users screen since this legislation started.

I did not know that, and thank you for bringing it to everyone's attention.

The problem being i suppose, when something tends to be given freely in this day of age, you are the product.

I don't suppose you, or anyone else, happens to know if "Norton" does the same?

Just purchase the VPN for the household, i hope not.

[quintessentone]

The U.K. government has received complaints by it's citizens against 4-Chan and other sites, and that is why they are taking action.

As for 4Chan, it may turn out that the U.K. will ban 4Chan content in that country but they are looking for a mutually beneficial option(s).

----------------------

"Other sites have chosen to comply, moving NSFW content behind an age verification system, which often requires people to be registered users even when just browsing content. 4chan has a wide range of content and does have an Adult (NSFW) section that could be with work by 4chan have limited age verified access to UK visitors.
 The laws pushing adult (NSFW) content behind age verification systems is not just a UK one, the US State Texas recently had a law requiring websites to verify visitors ages with regards to adult ages upheld by the US Supreme Court.
 
The online safety also imposes duties on sites to carry out a risk assessment and have systems in place to protect visitors and outline what the site will do to avoid hosting illegal content."

---------------

"Unfortunately the work involved has led to some sites blocking UK based IP blocks, and while some say they are working to comply, others will probably just vanish permanently for UK users. This is what is behind the worries about free speech being blocked. The problem is that free speech can have consequences, for example someone using AI to generate fake images of someone and posting them claiming free speech, or others goading someone who has posted suicidal thoughts."

Ofcom issues 4chan a provisional notice under Online Safety Act | thinkbroadband

-----------------------------------

"Of the other 49 sites seen by LBC, many provided easy-access to BDSM content which has been connected by experts to increased levels of sexual violence against young girls. 
 The inaction of those sites to implement safety checks has been condemned by a women’s mental health charity. 
 
The CEO of The Molly Rose Foundation — set up in memory of a 14-year-old who died by suicide following exposure to harmful online content — told LBC: “Unless the regulator is quick to take action, it sends a terrible message to the rest of the industry.
 
“It’s a crucial early test for Ofcom and they can’t flunk it.”"

-------------------------------

Well, the harm done to children and/or young people is a reality which can't be ignored. And parents can't be around 24/7 because most have to make a living and children/young people have a ways of getting around imposed parental rules, especially with friends who enjoy freedom from lenient parents.

-----------------------------------

"The initial search and sift yielded 72 items for full review in the second screening stage. From these 72 items, 3 overarching themes emerged:

• Pornography and its relationship with acceptance of, and propensity towards, violence against women
  
• Pornography and its relationship with objectification of women
  
• Pornography and its relationship with negative influences on sexual relationships
   
  

The relationship between pornography use and harmful sexual attitudes and behaviours: literature review - GOV.UK

-----------------

Some states' leaders are also clamping down on sites which are harming children and young people. 

-----------------

"The Louisiana Attorney General is taking legal action against a popular gaming site for children and teens.Attorney General Liz Murrill filed a child protection lawsuit against the game Roblox."

"Roblox is the No. 1 gaming website for children and teens.
 
According to the lawsuit, the attorney general alleges that the game facilitates and distributes child sex abuse material and exploits Louisiana children.
 
The suit also accused the gaming site of intentionally failing to implement basic safety controls to protect children from predators."

Louisiana files child protection lawsuit against this popular children's game

----------------------

[BeyondKnowledge]

Update: 

UK now trying to ban VPNs. It seems VPNs have become very popular all of a sudden.




Perhaps the internet just needs to ban the UK for an hour or two. Let's see how the banks will work without it.

[Ignorant]

Well, the harm done to children and/or young people is a reality which can't be ignored.

Not so fast...

How would you prove, for example, that the correlation between viewing sexual violence and acts of sexual violence is causal? Someone who is inclined to sexual violence for other reasons would obviously also be attracted to porn that depicts it. This is such an obvious correlation that extra care should be taken that a causal link is sufficiently proven before we draw our conclusions.

They mention this in the executive summary of the research paper you linked:
 

The evidence base cannot establish a direct causal link between the use of pornography and harmful sexual attitudes or behaviours; this would require impractical and unethical study conditions (forced exposure to pornography in order to observe potentially harmful behaviour in the future).

The only way you could prove that the above relationship is causal is by forcing people to watch violent porn, which is obviously unethical.

This is much like people saying "violent video games make children violent". Common sense says it's probably true to an extent, but it's pretty much impossible to prove and the extent is probably greatly overstated. I think it's the same for porn.

To me, privacy concerns outweigh the potential harm to children, which can always be mitigated by parental controls and, in this case, sex education. Also, whenever someone says "think of the children!", I tend to assume it's just yet another attempt to impose their worldview on the rest of us. For one, Christians have been trying to ban porn since its inception.

[quintessentone]

Not so fast...

How would you prove, for example, that the correlation between viewing sexual violence and acts of sexual violence is causal? Someone who is inclined to sexual violence for other reasons would obviously also be attracted to porn that depicts it. This is such an obvious correlation that extra care should be taken that a causal link is sufficiently proven before we draw our conclusions.

They mention this in the executive summary of the research paper you linked:
 

The only way you could prove that the above relationship is causal is by forcing people to watch violent porn, which is obviously unethical.

This is much like people saying "violent video games make children violent". Common sense says it's probably true to an extent, but it's pretty much impossible to prove and the extent is probably greatly overstated. I think it's the same for porn.

To me, privacy concerns outweigh the potential harm to children, which can always be mitigated by parental controls and, in this case, sex education. Also, whenever someone says "think of the children!", I tend to assume it's just yet another attempt to impose their worldview on the rest of us. For one, Christians have been trying to ban porn since its inception.

That's just one source, just because their base evidence is not conclusive and think they need to turn to sexual violence to make their case does not mean that it is not harmful to children, or those that watch porn then perceive others' as sexual objects or worse.

There are many other sources which prove, without a doubt, the harm it causes to children.

"Sharpe listed a number of harmful effects of online pornography on children, including: depression, extreme social anxiety, inability to form relationships, body dysmorphia, lack of sleep, poor concentration, and brain fog."

BBC highlights the harm of porn on children - The Christian Institute

"Sex is broken now."

"The ‘benchmark’ CCo report, ‘Sex is kind of broken now’, is based on a survey of 1,020 sixteen to 21-year-olds conducted prior to 25 July — the deadline for some of the largest pornography sites to introduce age-verification checks to identify under-18s."

"Based on analysis carried out by digital data company Similarweb, the Financial Times recently reported that “Pornhub, the UK’s most-visited adult site, experienced a 47 per cent drop in traffic between July 24, the day before the rules came into force, and August 8”. Other pornography sites, it said, had also seen a dramatic fall in traffic over the same period."

Children’s tsar: ‘Porn age verification needed now more than ever’ - The Christian Institute

So it would appear 47% or more of Pornhub UK's drop in traffic were likely underage kids.

Ive-seen-horrible-things-Online-Safety-Report-October-2024.pdf

If everyone bothers to read the above link it is made clear it is the citizens asking for these protections.

[Ignorant]

That's just one source, just because their base evidence is not conclusive and think they need to turn to sexual violence to make their case does not mean that it is not harmful to children, or those that watch porn then perceive others' as sexual objects or worse.

I never said it's not harmful to children. I do think the extent of the harm is overstated, especially by Christians. Please refer to the last two paragraphs you quoted.
 

There are many other sources which prove, without a doubt, the harm it causes to children.

The point that I was trying to make, and that the researchers made in the bit that I quoted, is that to prove a causal relationship in cases such as this you need unethical study conditions. So there very likely is no source that proves it without a doubt. But ok let's see your sources.
 

"Sharpe listed a number of harmful effects of online pornography on children, including: depression, extreme social anxiety, inability to form relationships, body dysmorphia, lack of sleep, poor concentration, and brain fog."

BBC highlights the harm of porn on children - The Christian Institute

The Christian institute? Really? After I just made a point about how Christians are always imposing their worldview on others and have been trying to ban porn since its inception? You should already know that this is not a source I will take very seriously.

But I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read the article anyway. My response: Citation needed. What is Sharpe's source for her claims? Your appeal to authority is obviously rather unconvincing.
 

"Sex is broken now."

"The ‘benchmark’ CCo report, ‘Sex is kind of broken now’, is based on a survey of 1,020 sixteen to 21-year-olds conducted prior to 25 July — the deadline for some of the largest pornography sites to introduce age-verification checks to identify under-18s."

"Based on analysis carried out by digital data company Similarweb, the Financial Times recently reported that “Pornhub, the UK’s most-visited adult site, experienced a 47 per cent drop in traffic between July 24, the day before the rules came into force, and August 8”. Other pornography sites, it said, had also seen a dramatic fall in traffic over the same period."

Children’s tsar: ‘Porn age verification needed now more than ever’ - The Christian Institute

Great, more Christians speaking about sex and porn, things they are famously knowledgeable about. Since you're just appealing to authority here: When it comes to authorities about sex (and treatment of women, for that matter), Christians would be near the bottom of my list.

Also, "children's tsar"? Cringe.
 

So it would appear 47% or more of Pornhub UK's drop in traffic were likely underage kids.

Much more likely is that it's mostly adults who don't want to go through the trouble of proving their identity.
 

Ive-seen-horrible-things-Online-Safety-Report-October-2024.pdf

If everyone bothers to read the above link it is made clear it is the citizens asking for these protections.

Some citizens, sure. I'm sure there are also some citizens who would love a ban on all organized religion, which can also be quite harmful to children. A bunch of citizens asked for Trump, too. That some citizens are asking for something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Do you have any actual scientific evidence (not appeals to authority) that shows the extent to which porn is harmful to children? If it has been shown that the harm is significant, I could be convinced that concerns around "online safety" outweigh the privacy concerns. As of now I remain thoroughly unconvinced.

[quintessentone]

I never said it's not harmful to children. I do think the extent of the harm is overstated, especially by Christians. Please refer to the last two paragraphs you quoted.
 

The point that I was trying to make, and that the researchers made in the bit that I quoted, is that to prove a causal relationship in cases such as this you need unethical study conditions. So there very likely is no source that proves it without a doubt. But ok let's see your sources.
 

The Christian institute? Really? After I just made a point about how Christians are always imposing their worldview on others and have been trying to ban porn since its inception? You should already know that this is not a source I will take very seriously.

But I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read the article anyway. My response: Citation needed. What is Sharpe's source for her claims? Your appeal to authority is obviously rather unconvincing.
 

Great, more Christians speaking about sex and porn, things they are famously knowledgeable about. Since you're just appealing to authority here: When it comes to authorities about sex (and treatment of women, for that matter), Christians would be near the bottom of my list.

Also, "children's tsar"? Cringe.
 

Much more likely is that it's mostly adults who don't want to go through the trouble of proving their identity.
 

Some citizens, sure. I'm sure there are also some citizens who would love a ban on all organized religion, which can also be quite harmful to children. A bunch of citizens asked for Trump, too. That some citizens are asking for something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Do you have any actual scientific evidence, not appeals to authority, that shows the extent to which porn is harmful to children? If it has been shown that the harm is significant, I could be convinced that concerns around "online safety" outweigh the privacy concerns. As of now I remain thoroughly unconvinced.

You know within all the sources I posted, you missed the most important evidence, that being, what the young people experienced and how they say they were harmed.

Whether you are convinced or not, parents and organizations have persuaded the government to start online protection of children. So the people have spoken and the government listened, and sprung into action.

The protection of children trumps everything else.