I think the main concern is as it's about fining platforms who might limit stuff to stay clear. On many things it's very open to interpretation what is harmful so platforms will stop anything in a grey area.There are legitimate worries that the law might cause an amount of censorship, but I think for the most part that's probably overblown.
Exactly. They're trying to fix everything all at once instead of a more focused law for each situation.There needed to be several smaller more defined bills, rather than this huge unworkable one.
Yeah that's definitely a myth. Always assumed it was an in joke rather than anything serious. Police can't access tattle data and even if they could unless you use an email address that identifys yourself it's near impossible to track anyone.
But anyway this whole extreme hypothetical scenario is irrelevant too as the bill hasn't really got anything to do with influencers. Sadly as there does need to be more laws to reign them in. Just a bit of a confusing bill with the impossible mission of making the internet safe for everyone.
---
From the BBC article, this is what it's about;
Peers have passed a controversial new law aimed at making social media firms more responsible for users' safety on their platforms.
Platforms will also need to show they are committed to removing illegal content including:
child sexual abuse
controlling or coercive behaviour
extreme sexual violence
illegal immigration and people smuggling
promoting or facilitating suicide
promoting self-harm
animal cruelty
selling illegal drugs or weapons
terrorism
New offences have also been included in the bill, including cyber-flashing and the sharing of "deepfake" pornography.
Online Safety Bill: Crackdown on harmful social media content agreed
The law aims to force firms to remove illegal content and protect children from some legal but harmful material.www.google.com
No, they backed out of that and removed it from the bill. Apple and Facebook said they'd stop services otherwiseHmmm no as usual the sting is buried in the small print, and while anyone good and honest would support monitoring and controlling all of those listed items, what's also in this bill and not really being talked about much, is a requirement for the vendors of encrypted messaging apps such as (but not limited to) whatsapp, signal etc that they loosen the encryption and allow "government agencies" to read everyone's messages.
No, they backed out of that and removed it from the bill. Apple and Facebook said they'd stop services otherwise
View attachment 2492260 q
This bill is so confusing that even people following it aren't sure what they included. Lots of it isn't possible to enforce so
It reads like an April fools. These people have less knowledge of the internet than a 6 year old.UK porn watchers could have faces scanned
New draft guidance sets out how porn websites and apps should stop children viewing their content.www.bbc.co.uk
This whole article is a complete mess. Ofcom will scan your face before you can enter a porno site? Okay then. And they will fine non compliant sites 10% of their global revenue. Ooooh! I’m sure all the tube sites with the Russian servers will be quaking when they get a letter in the mailbox from British Ofcom
That’s the start of it!
I’m not sure ? We’re still in the single market and according to a recent leaked document under EU directive, that’s what’s holding up our institutions from forming ….Dying to see how those companies handle it and what challenges they’ll make, it’s bound to cost them in lost revenue .I'm confused. It's an EU law, so would N Ireland be following that?
45 million users seems a strange number to decide on a cut off for something
---
Seems very vague, how to you determine if something has been redesigned to ensure safety of minors?
- Redesign their systems to ensure a high level of privacy, security, and safety of minors;"
---
what???
- Stop presenting targeted advertisement based on profiling of sensitive data (such as ethnic origin, political opinions or sexual orientation)
From an outsiders view it's massively confusing, seems like it's not much less confusing for those in said countries.I’m not sure ? We’re still in the single market and according to a recent leaked document under EU directive, that’s what’s holding up our institutions from forming