Like, are they going to give Elon Musk a 2 year prison sentence because he removed the majority of his safeguarding staff?
Who exactly are the managers liable for this? – how do you prove criminality on their part given the ability to protect lies within the abilities of lower level staff. It’s not the manager that’s manually checking every report after all – and this assumes that content online can be easily moderated.
I totally get the intent, but isn’t this just going to lead to “managers” that don’t actually manage being paid danger money for international companies to operate in the UK.
With all these amendments and changes going through can someone confirm or deny if I’ll still need to apply for a wanking pass when accessing ‘gentleman’s websites’?
Ah yes, the imaginary figurines on the board law.
Lets jail people who do not live here!
I want kids protected online, but at the same time government and MPs (& others) need to understand that the criminal law is not a cure all for all of societies woes. Things like this will have little or no impact. You might one day see a low level manager accused of a crime, but the real bosses will never be affected.
It’s amazing how they revolt over this and yet are happy to wave through significantly more damaging and controversial things like striking laws and minority report laws.
It’s amazing how in 2023, none of the political elite have written a single line of code, don’t understand what even occurs when you enter a website address in the address bar or how encryption works.
But hey, let’s get rid of those algorithms, ain’t that right Nads?
This is really about censorship.
The big social networks will always wiggle out with bags of money and having content censored at the request of government (for instance suppression of information about strikes, corruption and so on).
It’s about making people fear hosting their own independent social networking platforms.
It is possible to buy a service where an army of bots will be posting harmful content to a target site and then target site will be unable to cope with it, then report to the authorities and get it shut down.
How could any legal action be enacted against sites based in foreign countries? Or the dodgy blog sites (hacked or not) that have porn posted on them that pop up and disappear just as quickly?
If I had such an internet service, I simply would geoblock the UK and consider this a *”proportionate measures” to stop children* (in the UK) *seeing harmful material.*
“Won’t somebody please think of the children?!”
How about you think of your own first, and not give them free reign to access the internet.
Is this article deliberately confusing as to whether the amendment is to add or remove the requirement to add age verification/censorship to social media?
> In exchange, the government has now agreed to introduce an amendment of its own along similar lines when the bill gets to the House of Lords – giving ministers more time to work on the wording.
So it doesn’t get HoC scrutiny?
> richest pm in history
> richer than the king itself
> name even rhymes with rich
> bows down to pressure
what a dumbass. why doesnt he just buy all the mps in his party?
12 comments
I really don’t understand this ammendment.
Like, are they going to give Elon Musk a 2 year prison sentence because he removed the majority of his safeguarding staff?
Who exactly are the managers liable for this? – how do you prove criminality on their part given the ability to protect lies within the abilities of lower level staff. It’s not the manager that’s manually checking every report after all – and this assumes that content online can be easily moderated.
I totally get the intent, but isn’t this just going to lead to “managers” that don’t actually manage being paid danger money for international companies to operate in the UK.
With all these amendments and changes going through can someone confirm or deny if I’ll still need to apply for a wanking pass when accessing ‘gentleman’s websites’?
Ah yes, the imaginary figurines on the board law.
Lets jail people who do not live here!
I want kids protected online, but at the same time government and MPs (& others) need to understand that the criminal law is not a cure all for all of societies woes. Things like this will have little or no impact. You might one day see a low level manager accused of a crime, but the real bosses will never be affected.
It’s amazing how they revolt over this and yet are happy to wave through significantly more damaging and controversial things like striking laws and minority report laws.
It’s amazing how in 2023, none of the political elite have written a single line of code, don’t understand what even occurs when you enter a website address in the address bar or how encryption works.
But hey, let’s get rid of those algorithms, ain’t that right Nads?
This is really about censorship.
The big social networks will always wiggle out with bags of money and having content censored at the request of government (for instance suppression of information about strikes, corruption and so on).
It’s about making people fear hosting their own independent social networking platforms.
It is possible to buy a service where an army of bots will be posting harmful content to a target site and then target site will be unable to cope with it, then report to the authorities and get it shut down.
How could any legal action be enacted against sites based in foreign countries? Or the dodgy blog sites (hacked or not) that have porn posted on them that pop up and disappear just as quickly?
If I had such an internet service, I simply would geoblock the UK and consider this a *”proportionate measures” to stop children* (in the UK) *seeing harmful material.*
“Won’t somebody please think of the children?!”
How about you think of your own first, and not give them free reign to access the internet.
Is this article deliberately confusing as to whether the amendment is to add or remove the requirement to add age verification/censorship to social media?
> In exchange, the government has now agreed to introduce an amendment of its own along similar lines when the bill gets to the House of Lords – giving ministers more time to work on the wording.
So it doesn’t get HoC scrutiny?
> richest pm in history
> richer than the king itself
> name even rhymes with rich
> bows down to pressure
what a dumbass. why doesnt he just buy all the mps in his party?