Author Topic: UK internet censoring  (Read 12228 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5156
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2023, 11:04:50 am »
Might as well start banning books that might cause damage if they end up in the hands of children.
Books have to be actively chosen by the reader (or teacher). With (un)social media the platform chooses what the reader sees based on opaque criteria designed to hook the reader into passively consuming more of the platform's product.
Social media is like newspapers of old, they contain a vast array of topics and content, not all suitable for children. Wikipedia being a different example of broad content pitched at all sorts of audiences, descending from encyclopaedias (which came in children's versions). If parents dont like their children having access to the broader content, then those children can be restricted/blocked/diverted away from that platform/site rather than adding barriers for everyone.

People choose to visit any specific website just as they choose to pick any specific book.
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2023, 11:15:15 am »
Might as well start banning books that might cause damage if they end up in the hands of children.
Books have to be actively chosen by the reader (or teacher). With (un)social media the platform chooses what the reader sees based on opaque criteria designed to hook the reader into passively consuming more of the platform's product.
Social media is like newspapers of old, they contain a vast array of topics and content, not all suitable for children.

I reiterate my point about active choices vs passive consumption of whatever somebody is paying to push.

Quote
Wikipedia being a different example of broad content pitched at all sorts of audiences, descending from encyclopaedias (which came in children's versions). If parents dont like their children having access to the broader content, then those children can be restricted/blocked/diverted away from that platform/site rather than adding barriers for everyone.

How, exactly?

I suspect you don't have children, because if you did you would realise how inventively devious they can be. (I encouraged that in my daughter, and it has paid off :))

Quote
People choose to visit any specific website just as they choose to pick any specific book.

Unlike books, all (un)social media websites change on-the-fly what the reader sees based on who is paying them them most to rent the readers' eyeballs and brains.

N.B. my reply #1 in this thread https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/uk-internet-censoring/msg4948498/#msg4948498
"Send an email to your MP, highlighting the key points.
I have."
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline voltsandjolts

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2549
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2023, 12:42:49 pm »
you equate universal moderation/control with a net win for society based on... nothing? Emotive nonsense.
Based on the fact we have a fairly functional society which uses the law ("Universal moderation/control" as you call it) to restrict the actions of all for the benefit of all. Perhaps some form of internet restriction is one more law than you can stand. But my suggestion above would not impact anyone other than parents and their children. Put a legal requirement in place for parents to provide only filtered internet access for their children. At least it would get parents talking about it, even if it was completey unenforcable.

Quote
There is no problem for adults, with many resources and solutions already existing for those who want their children to access the internet within a safe boundary why are they pushing that onto everyone else?
I agree with you on that. If enough parents did this, new laws wouldn't be needed. Why are they not doing it? Technical incompetance, cost, or just don't care. I do know parents who only allow net access in a shared room of their house (corridor or living room), to have some oversight, but were unaware of commercial filtered internet options.


Having said that, this whole argument is very similar to the old debates about pornography

At least in the old days, it was literally out of reach, ...at least for the shorter kids!

 

Offline rdl

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3667
  • Country: us
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2023, 03:18:01 pm »
There are a number of States here in the U.S. that have passed laws requiring some kind of age validation to access porn sites and other bad places on the internet. I live in one of them. I have not checked to see how this is supposed to work. I read that at least one large site is geo-blocking access completely. I suspect that the sellers of VPN services are happy.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9003
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2023, 04:06:07 pm »
Adapted from the Wikipedia article:
The First Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1768–1771, in three volumes) featured 160 copperplate illustrations.
Some illustrations were shocking, such as the three pages depicting female pelvises and fetuses in the midwifery article; King George III commanded that these pages be ripped from every copy.
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone

Offline Ed.Kloonk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4000
  • Country: au
  • Cat video aficionado
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2023, 04:27:46 pm »
Based on the fact we have a fairly functional society

Dude!
iratus parum formica
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2023, 09:15:22 pm »
I believe this thread relates to a piece of legislation known as the online harms bill. It's not specifically about protecting children, but targetting harmful content. This can be anything from misinformation, to blogs relating to suicide. The problem is, what's harmful, is open to interpretation and more often than not, we don't know what is misinformation, when we don't know the truth.

Handing the power to decide what is harmful and fact from fiction to a central body, especially the government, is dangerous because it will make said organisation very powerful. Heck, the authorities in this country have been guilty of spreading misinformation and dangerous content, especially over the last two years.
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone, james_s

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2023, 09:23:23 pm »
I believe this thread relates to a piece of legislation known as the online harms bill. It's not specifically about protecting children, but targetting harmful content. This can be anything from misinformation, to blogs relating to suicide. The problem is, what's harmful, is open to interpretation and more often than not, we don't know what is misinformation, when we don't know the truth.

Handing the power to decide what is harmful and fact from fiction to a central body, especially the government, is dangerous because it will make said organisation very powerful. Heck, the authorities in this country have been guilty of spreading misinformation and dangerous content, especially over the last two years.
The government is normally the bad guy. If it doesn't appear to be in some area today, give it some time, and see how it works out. Nobody who can escape the consequences of their actions stays a good guy for long, and those in government are almost totally immune.
 
The following users thanked this post: SiliconWizard

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5156
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2023, 09:58:12 pm »
Might as well start banning books that might cause damage if they end up in the hands of children.
Books have to be actively chosen by the reader (or teacher). With (un)social media the platform chooses what the reader sees based on opaque criteria designed to hook the reader into passively consuming more of the platform's product.
Social media is like newspapers of old, they contain a vast array of topics and content, not all suitable for children.
I reiterate my point about active choices vs passive consumption of whatever somebody is paying to push.
Going online, active choice, going to specific website, active choice, you cannot claim people are being forced to use platforms or sites which push unwanted content to them... because you are pointing to sites that are peoples choice to use.

Wikipedia being a different example of broad content pitched at all sorts of audiences, descending from encyclopaedias (which came in children's versions). If parents dont like their children having access to the broader content, then those children can be restricted/blocked/diverted away from that platform/site rather than adding barriers for everyone.
How, exactly?

I suspect you don't have children, because if you did you would realise how inventively devious they can be. (I encouraged that in my daughter, and it has paid off :))
Did you lock your children behind an electrified razor wire fence to stop them wandering the city (and then gave the keys to the government)? unlikely. Some schools have fences and lock kids inside, other have no fences and have students learn and understand the consequences of leaving of their own will. There are people who will choose one of those for their children but why should their preference be forced on everyone else? and then onto adults too?
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5156
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2023, 10:06:59 pm »
you equate universal moderation/control with a net win for society based on... nothing? Emotive nonsense.
Based on the fact we have a fairly functional society which uses the law ("Universal moderation/control" as you call it) to restrict the actions of all for the benefit of all. Perhaps some form of internet restriction is one more law than you can stand. But my suggestion above would not impact anyone other than parents and their children. Put a legal requirement in place for parents to provide only filtered internet access for their children. At least it would get parents talking about it, even if it was completey unenforcable.
Just because you can point to other good things about laws does not make all laws good. How dumb do you think we are?

What are the actual benefits of forcibly blocking content that would be legal to view in a book? can those benefits be quantified? what are the costs?

The proposed law is not only affecting children and parents, and only now do you make the reveal that is what you want to support (after many misleading posts trying to take such more extreme positions). Seems like you're here to add confusion and noise to the issue and keep banging on about THINK OF THE CHILDREN... who are not in any immediate and serious threat to their being/safety. Any psychological trauma from children coming across inappropriate content is entirely from the parents letting them access it (now that the schools are required to provide better controlled internet access).
 
The following users thanked this post: james_s

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7198
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2023, 11:29:13 pm »
I think there is one key thing here to consider: We cannot make the world a safe space.

To make the world a safe space, we'd have to put away a large fraction of the human population, because we are inherently unsafe.
No, I don't mean specific people are unsafe all the time, but that most people are unsafe some fraction of the time; for example, when drunk, on drugs, when in the grips of teenage angst and uncertainty, mental disorders, angry and frustrated at the lack of control over their lives, and so on.
The truly evil people are just the carrot on top, and not the meat of the issue at all.

Besides, accidents happen.

It's like with many mental problems like depression: we cannot remove the problem, we can only help the person to become strong and resilient enough to overcome the problem.  To many, the two feel the exact same thing, but the nature of the help needed is completely different.

In situations where actual physical violence or altercations are not involved, I think it is healthier to help make individuals stronger and more resilient, than to try and make their surroundings safe.  Children are a difficult point (I mean, there are many valid arguments to take into account), but I believe parents should have both the power and the responsibility of the upbringing of their children.  I do not believe governments trying to control all humans so that particular models of child upbringing will be safe, is at all tenable.  If not for any other reason, because prohibition laws not supported by a large majority of the population always fail.
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone, Karel

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2023, 12:27:05 am »
I believe this thread relates to a piece of legislation known as the online harms bill. It's not specifically about protecting children, but targetting harmful content. This can be anything from misinformation, to blogs relating to suicide. The problem is, what's harmful, is open to interpretation and more often than not, we don't know what is misinformation, when we don't know the truth.

Handing the power to decide what is harmful and fact from fiction to a central body, especially the government, is dangerous because it will make said organisation very powerful. Heck, the authorities in this country have been guilty of spreading misinformation and dangerous content, especially over the last two years.
The government is normally the bad guy. If it doesn't appear to be in some area today, give it some time, and see how it works out. Nobody who can escape the consequences of their actions stays a good guy for long, and those in government are almost totally immune.

We can kick out the government. We can't kick out the corporations.

That alone means the corporations are more insidiously dangerous in the long term.
Add that the corporations are the ones creating products specifically designed to amplify Tom Dick and Harriets nonsensical and paranoid ramblings.
Overall the unaccountable and untouchable corporations are, in the long term, more dangerous than any Western government.

Mind you, recent UK governments have been eroding that difference - but the current mob will largely disappear in 2024.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 
The following users thanked this post: ve7xen, Bryn

Offline twospoons

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 270
  • Country: nz
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2023, 01:29:45 am »
If you never let your kids climb a tree they will never appreciate the consequences of combining body-weight, dead branches and hard ground.
The end result of taking away all risks for kids is a generation of snowflakes who would take a sick-day for a hangnail.

I've never restricted my kids access to risky things, but I have made damn sure they understood the potential consequences.  There's no point trying to fence off the dangerous bits of the internet - that just makes it all the more enticing, and a determined kid absolutely will find a way around the barrier.  Instead, teach them to make the smart choice.

Education beats restriction every time.
 
The following users thanked this post: NiHaoMike, Someone, Karel, james_s, Jacon, SiliconWizard, Nominal Animal, Bryn

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2023, 02:59:41 am »
In my view, young children are viewing armful content online and it is causing damage. Societal damage. More worrying is that I see so clear path to a better, safer internet for younger folks. Age verification will probably be of limited benefit to the younger generation and a PITA to the rest of us. But we gotta do something. Firewalled internet (China style) for different age groups under 16? Under 10's limited to fifty websites? Fuck knows.

How about parents do their job and parent? If they want to shield their kids from certain websites then install a firewall in their home, or just do things the old fashioned way and supervise their children. We got our hands on dirty magazines now and then when we were kids and it doesn't seem to have done any lasting harm.

I just hope this doesn't become another fiasco like those goddamned cookie notifications that I constantly have to deal with thanks to some European law that doesn't even apply to me.
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone, Karel, Bryn

Online NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9323
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2023, 04:02:47 am »
This reminds me of how at the high school I went to, one of the biology books in the library has pictures of male and female private parts. (That's photographs, in addition to cross section drawings which are standard for such books.) I just kept it to myself and continued reading. In fairness, there are truly lots of books in any good sized library and it would be impractical to check each one for such "bad" pictures and words.

Looking back, it would have been fun to anonymously mention that such a book exists in the school library, then see how long it takes for it to be found. (That was before social media was a thing.) At the least, the librarian would be confused why there's suddenly a lot of students interested in books.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2023, 08:24:00 am »
If you never let your kids climb a tree they will never appreciate the consequences of combining body-weight, dead branches and hard ground.
The end result of taking away all risks for kids is a generation of snowflakes who would take a sick-day for a hangnail.

I've never restricted my kids access to risky things, but I have made damn sure they understood the potential consequences.  There's no point trying to fence off the dangerous bits of the internet - that just makes it all the more enticing, and a determined kid absolutely will find a way around the barrier.  Instead, teach them to make the smart choice.

Education beats restriction every time.

My attitudes too, expecially with climbing trees, respecting electricity, backpacking abroad, and more.

But there are important preconditions for it to work: intelligent and knowledgeable parents, attentive hand-on parenting. The latter isn't always possible, the former raises the obvious bootstrapping problem.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2023, 08:32:34 am »
In my view, young children are viewing armful content online and it is causing damage. Societal damage. More worrying is that I see so clear path to a better, safer internet for younger folks. Age verification will probably be of limited benefit to the younger generation and a PITA to the rest of us. But we gotta do something. Firewalled internet (China style) for different age groups under 16? Under 10's limited to fifty websites? Fuck knows.

How about parents do their job and parent? If they want to shield their kids from certain websites then install a firewall in their home, or just do things the old fashioned way and supervise their children. We got our hands on dirty magazines now and then when we were kids and it doesn't seem to have done any lasting harm.

I just hope this doesn't become another fiasco like those goddamned cookie notifications that I constantly have to deal with thanks to some European law that doesn't even apply to me.

Installing a firewall simply doesn't work. Evidence: China's great wall, and the general impracticality of filtering "good" from "bad".

The "cookie fiasco" isn't bad: it viscerally shows you how you are being traded across many companies. That, plus "no javascript" plugins make people realise why there are farcebook and twatter logos on many web pages. That's basic survival information for, say, those unfortunate to be based in countries where religious zealots attempt to control how you use bits of your body.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #42 on: July 10, 2023, 08:36:53 am »
This reminds me of how at the high school I went to, one of the biology books in the library has pictures of male and female private parts. (That's photographs, in addition to cross section drawings which are standard for such books.) I just kept it to myself and continued reading. In fairness, there are truly lots of books in any good sized library and it would be impractical to check each one for such "bad" pictures and words.

My daughter found one of those in a local bookshop when she was slightly "too young", i.e. about 7. I tried and failed to deflect her by pointing out other books on her traditional favourite subjects, to no avail.

I ended up buying the (rather good) book. Favourite comment: "did you and mummy really do that?" :)
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline voltsandjolts

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2549
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #43 on: July 10, 2023, 09:00:25 am »
Just because you can point to other good things about laws does not make all laws good. How dumb do you think we are?
You are arguing against laws that impinge on your freedoms for the benefit of others, yet there are many of those already. The thought of one more has apparently tipped you over the edge. You don't care whether there is any net benefit for society, just that you are not affected in any way. Ever thought of moving to your own island, all by yourself?

Quote
What are the actual benefits of forcibly blocking content that would be legal to view in a book? can those benefits be quantified? what are the costs?
You aren't aware but there is substancial online material which is not legal in any book.

Quote
The proposed law is not only affecting children and parents, and only now do you make the reveal that is what you want to support (after many misleading posts trying to take such more extreme positions). Seems like you're here to add confusion and noise to the issue and keep banging on about THINK OF THE CHILDREN... who are not in any immediate and serious threat to their being/safety. Any psychological trauma from children coming across inappropriate content is entirely from the parents letting them access it (now that the schools are required to provide better controlled internet access).
You haven't even read what I've written and just love to jump in for the attack. You're advocating for doing nothing (which has been shown to be inadeqate in the last 20 years) and just banging on about poor (technical) parenting, which is exactly what my suggestion aims to improve, with regards to safer surfing.

Did you have any proposal, other than do nothing?
 

Online jpanhalt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4005
  • Country: us
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #44 on: July 10, 2023, 09:01:09 am »
If you never let your kids climb a tree they will never appreciate the consequences of combining body-weight, dead branches and hard ground.
The end result of taking away all risks for kids is a generation of snowflakes who would take a sick-day for a hangnail.

Education beats restriction every time.
I think the greatest risk of seemingly taking away all risks is "risk compensation."

People, particularly the young, are prone to seek excitement and that includes risk.  We did it in my school days well past 16. It's not just 16-year olds.  When young, we took dares, jumped stairs, balanced on cables, and surfed in restricted areas (Camp Pendleton, CA).  Older, there is no need to mention some of that stuff.

Today, life probably is not really any safer, but there seems to be a false sense of safety promoted by all the exhaustive warnings and protective devices.  The end results are the tragedies we read in the news about TikTok (etc.) challenges gone wrong.  To me, there is no right way to choke yourself into unconsciousness.  I never walk into a parking lot or cross a street without looking, yet I see younger generations doing just that on the expectation that all drivers will be watching out for them.
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5156
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #45 on: July 10, 2023, 10:24:06 am »
The proposed law is not only affecting children and parents, and only now do you make the reveal that is what you want to support (after many misleading posts trying to take such more extreme positions). Seems like you're here to add confusion and noise to the issue and keep banging on about THINK OF THE CHILDREN... who are not in any immediate and serious threat to their being/safety. Any psychological trauma from children coming across inappropriate content is entirely from the parents letting them access it (now that the schools are required to provide better controlled internet access).
You haven't even read what I've written and just love to jump in for the attack. You're advocating for doing nothing (which has been shown to be inadeqate in the last 20 years) and just banging on about poor (technical) parenting, which is exactly what my suggestion aims to improve, with regards to safer surfing.
Because you say there is some big problem which needs fixing but fail to bring any substantiation or evidence of the supposed harms, still. There is evidence of harms from too much censorship in some areas right now (https://www.mamamia.com.au/why-australian-law-demands-all-vaginas-be-digitally-altered-nsfw/), a balance needs to be struck, but it certainly appears adding further broad censorship controls are not substantiated or justified at this time.

You say the status quo has been shown to be inadequate, where? how? why? by who?

What are the actual benefits of forcibly blocking content that would be legal to view in a book? can those benefits be quantified? what are the costs?
You aren't aware but there is substancial online material which is not legal in any book.
Yes, and most of that is already illegal to distribute or share over the internet. That is in no way requiring these new laws. The questions posted to you are clear and plain, yet you just jump around with more vague emotional blither rather than respond to their content.
 
The following users thanked this post: james_s

Offline voltsandjolts

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2549
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #46 on: July 10, 2023, 10:56:35 am »
The questions posted to you are clear and plain, yet you just jump around with more vague emotional blither rather than respond to their content.

Perhaps you could list and enumerate your questions for me.

If you are referring to evidence that children are being harmed by online content, it's only a cursory search away.
Here's one report by the UK's leading children’s charity the NSPCC

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/online-safety/parliamentary-briefing---draft-online-safety-bill---sept-2021.pdf

You may not care to read it, so allow me to provide a short excerpt:

Quote
This has never been more important and the figures below highlight how the scale and complexity of online harms continues to increase:

– There was a record-high 70% increase in offences related to Sexual Communication with a Child recorded between April 2020 and March 2021. Almost half of the offences used Facebook owned apps, including Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger.

– The Internet Watch Foundation saw a 77% increase in reports of ‘self-generated’ child sexual abuse material in 2020.

– NSPCC helplines saw a 60% increase in the number of contacts concerning online child sexual abuse, compared to the period before the pandemic.

– Private messaging is now a primary vector for online abuse: from March 2019-2020 one in six children (17%) aged 10 to 15 years had spoken with someone they had never met before (equivalent to 682,000 children). Where children are contacted by someone they don’t know in person, in 74% of instances this takes place through private messaging.
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5156
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #47 on: July 10, 2023, 11:36:14 am »
The questions posted to you are clear and plain, yet you just jump around with more vague emotional blither rather than respond to their content.

Perhaps you could list and enumerate your questions for me.

If you are referring to evidence that children are being harmed by online content, it's only a cursory search away.
Here's one report by the UK's leading children’s charity the NSPCC

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/online-safety/parliamentary-briefing---draft-online-safety-bill---sept-2021.pdf

You may not care to read it, so allow me to provide a short excerpt:

Quote
This has never been more important and the figures below highlight how the scale and complexity of online harms continues to increase:

– There was a record-high 70% increase in offences related to Sexual Communication with a Child recorded between April 2020 and March 2021. Almost half of the offences used Facebook owned apps, including Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger.

– The Internet Watch Foundation saw a 77% increase in reports of ‘self-generated’ child sexual abuse material in 2020.

– NSPCC helplines saw a 60% increase in the number of contacts concerning online child sexual abuse, compared to the period before the pandemic.

– Private messaging is now a primary vector for online abuse: from March 2019-2020 one in six children (17%) aged 10 to 15 years had spoken with someone they had never met before (equivalent to 682,000 children). Where children are contacted by someone they don’t know in person, in 74% of instances this takes place through private messaging.
Ok so there is an increase in inappropriate personal interactions between children and other people, so why not argue for things which will address that? Like you know, supervision and having parents in the loop/vetting contacts?

Censoring static content and limiting access to information is not doing anything to address that.
 
The following users thanked this post: james_s

Offline voltsandjolts

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2549
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #48 on: July 10, 2023, 12:05:57 pm »
Ok so there is an increase in inappropriate personal interactions between children and other people, so why not argue for things which will address that?
I first need to argue against the folks who think doing nothing is the preferred option.

Quote
Like you know, supervision and having parents in the loop/vetting contacts?
Which is my suggestion above, to put legal requirements on parents to provide a filtered (somewhat safer) internet connection - force the parents into the loop.
 

Offline themadhippy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3266
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #49 on: July 10, 2023, 01:54:44 pm »
If its about protecting the children aint it about time we banned the bbc
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf