Online Safety Bill: Crackdown on harmful social media content agreed
www.bbc.com
The law aims to force firms to remove illegal content and protect children from some legal but harmful material.

Dark day for online privacy in the UK.

  • Ethalia@feddit.ch
    1035·
    3 years ago

    wOn’T sOmEbOdY pLeAsE tHiNk oF ThE cHiLdReN- how about doing some actual parenting? also it’s not like this will stop illegal content, what a joke

    • NabeGewell@lemmy.worldEnglish
      39·
      3 years ago

      Oh this is done for the money. What wouldve been better is age restriction to the whole net, hopefully finding a way to make parents responsible for their children and what they do. But that means way less views and traffic for ads. Yes there’s “YT Kids” and such but what being on the internet has taught me is absolutely every type of online service can be exploited and attacked.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      112·
      3 years ago

      I can understand parents wanting some help from official sides. They are hated no matter what they do: Controlling internet access, especially of their teenagers? Helicopter parenting, or parents on a power trip. Letting their children use the internet? Neglecting assholes. Sitting next to their teenagers while they use the internet? Overbearing creeps smothering their children and possibly jobless leeches.

      Parents have to at least be able to trust content filters.

      • King@lemmy.worldBanned
        82·
        3 years ago

        Nice strawmen u got there, they can helicopter their dicks too idc stop controlling MY experience

  • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
    931·
    3 years ago

    So encryption is dead in the UK?

    Do they not realize there are messaging services that don’t even have a central server or even an entity responsible?

    Or companies that don’t even have a presence in the UK, and thus no responsibility to comply with their laws?

    Pedos will just download and install something like Keet or Signal or Session while the privacy and security of law-abiding citizens are irrevocably compromised…

  • CouldntCareBear@sh.itjust.works
    891·
    3 years ago

    After bouncing back and forth between the house of lord’s and the house of commons This bill is a shadow of it’s former self. I’m glad to say.

    Three things that were massively damaging for privacy and security have, as far as I can see, been scrapped.

    1. The bill no longer requires tech companies to control ‘harmful but legal’ content. A blurry, ill defined concept that would have been impossible to regulate.
    2. The bill no longer requires all end to end encrypted communication channel’s (WhatsApp etc) to have a backdoor for governments and enforcement agencies to access unencrypted messages between people. Something that would have broken effective security in every way.
    3. The bill no longer requires porn to only be accessible to UK citizens after they have proven they are an adult. This was by providing bank details or ID to porn websites (lol no thanks), possibly through a third party company that is supposed to assure some privacy ( lol still no thanks).

    And what’s left in the bill is going to be regulated by Ofcom, a toothless underfunded shell of a regulatory body.

    • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
      381·
      3 years ago

      Can I ask where you got this info from? The article says the bill is 300 pages long. I’m never getting through all that.

      Edit: the article also claims age verification for porn sites is still in there?

    • Leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
      162·
      3 years ago

      re your 2nd point, that’s most certainly not been scrapped. The language has changed to basically say, they’re aware thetech doesn’t currently exist to do this but as soon as it does, it must be done. It’s a temporary reprieve at best.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.caBanned
      1·
      3 years ago

      Don’t worry, allmof that will be back on the table again next year, and then the next and the next, untill it passes.

      Remember kids, if you want to be a good evil politician, you just keep pushing and pushing and pushing your evil shit until people tire and it passes.

      This shit has been on the table at just about all governments since at least 2 decades. It just returns each year with a new name, same shit.

        • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
          11·
          3 years ago

          Because the social media giants should be held responsible for the damaging stuff they host and push through algorithms that target hate and an adapted “if it bleeds it leads” style of pushing things just to keep people enraged and engaged.

          Why do you think removing child porn, animal crushing videos, and suicide content is a bad thing?

            • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
              11·
              3 years ago

              Jesus, so dramatic.

              I just have a different opinion than you and don’t feel this is as big a deal as the hyperbole makes it sound, while also doing great good to help the internet and the kids that have to grow up alongside it.

              We already know the kind of damage the exposure to this sort of content can cause to a developing mind, and if the internet is going to be around forever, then we absolutely SHOULD be doing stuff like this just to hold the tech players accountable.

              You can still use your precious DMs encrypted in other places my guy, even Signal thinks it’s negotiable, so calm your tits.

    • guriinii@lemmy.world
      502·
      3 years ago

      We recently passed a law that enables the UK to indefinitely detain adult and children refugees and asylum seekers. I’m sure they’ll be building camps next.

      This government has no morals.

        • guriinii@lemmy.world
          12·
          3 years ago

          Well, people have actively been trying for decades. National Front, British National Party, UKIP, anything Nigel Farage touches, they all have elements of white supremacy, various other forms of bigotry, or “Traditional British Values”.

      • Leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
        161·
        3 years ago

        And that’s another part of this bill - discussion of ‘illegal immigration’ is now forbidden.

        • guriinii@lemmy.world
          7·
          3 years ago

          Is it a blanket ban on all discussion of illegal immigration or is it something more specific? Like discussing plans to help immigrants or something.

          If it is a complete ban, how will online news outlets cover the subject?

          • Leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
            8·
            3 years ago

            Unknown at this stage. I suspect it’s being kept intentionally vague so they can shutdown whatever they like but leave up the GB News/Daily Heil type propaganda.

  • HipPriest@kbin.social
    47·
    3 years ago

    VPN subscriptions in the UK will be a lucrative market then for people wanting access to, let’s see, Wikipedia…

    I’m interested to know what the Signal President meant when she said she’s much more optimistic about working with the government than she originally was.

    The thing is it obviously does come from good intentions, and it’s very rare you’ll find me saying that about something to do with the Tories. But it’s so obviously the wrong approach and yet here we are. Thanks for nothing. Yet again.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      264·
      3 years ago

      They are using the “good intentions” as cover for their ever expanding surveillance state. It is absolutely not the intention of this bill to provide “safety” for the citizens. It’s to make sure that the citizens don’t get too uppity and threaten their masters.

    • Leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
      211·
      3 years ago

      The original intent - to stop kids accessing harmful content on big tech media sites was the sole original intent. That’s now morphed into the legislative tool for mass surveillance that’s just been passed. That original intent wasn’t a Tory idea as such, but two researchers. The addition of more and more draconian elements most definitely was from the Tories. Including the red Tory currently leading the Labour party.

    • lps2@lemmy.ml
      11·
      3 years ago

      I feel since she took over, Signal has been on a steady downward trajectory. Increasing the barriers to use, more centralization instead of federation, and the stupid fucking Stories feature.

      • JupiterKino@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        3 years ago

        Which barriers to use has Signal implemented? How is the App more centralized now than before, and have they ever expressed interest in federating their service before under Moxie? And how is implementing an optional feature that a lot of people like an argument for an assumed “downward trajectory”?

        • lps2@lemmy.ml
          1·
          3 years ago

          SMS support - signal went from being a one stop shop for messaging to yet another standalone messaging app that suffers from a lack of network effect unlike its competitors. The all in one approach was it’s single greatest asset in getting people onto the platform.

          There were desires to open up the platform prior, now it almost entirely forces you onto Signal exclusively and any discussion of other clients is expressely forbidden in its official support channels AND in it’s unofficial (yet run by foundation members) channels like it’s reddit sub

          And yes, hopping on a shitty bandwagon of features its competitors have is a massive waste of dev hours and indicative of its downward trajectory

          • JupiterKino@lemmy.world
            11·
            3 years ago

            SMS support

            Completely irrelevant to any point you made previously.

            There were desires to open up the platform prior

            This article from Moxie himself in 2016 shows they had no intention of expanding/implementing federation at all. This was way before the current President took over.

            hopping on a shitty bandwagon of features its competitors have

            The fact that you don’t differentiate between objective degradations of a service and implementing a feature you don’t care about because you are not the target audience for it just show that you don’t argue in good faith but just want to push an agenda.

    • Koof_on_the_Roof@lemmy.worldEnglish
      111·
      3 years ago

      Ironic if most UK users just start using VPNs to access content no longer available in UK.

      Probably means she’s believing what they told her!

      As for the Tories I think this is the ideal extension to their snoopers charter.

      • HipPriest@kbin.social
        7·
        3 years ago

        I’ve been using a VPN, blockers, all sorts in the UK to disguise some of my online activity from Google and other companies so if I’m just doing the same thing to avoid the government there’s not much difference.

        The fact that I still use Google products is a lapse and due to laziness on my part…

        Of course it could be a vote winner for Starmer at the next election to say he’ll repeal it on free speech grounds of he played it right. But then the opposition could spin it as him not wanting to protect children online so he probably won’t have the guts to risk it.

    • Chaos@lemmy.world
      2·
      3 years ago

      Hmm surely vpn companies would have to start logging heavily now. It should be possible to have a backdoor by design. All I can trust is tor I think

  • _number8_@lemmy.world
    371·
    3 years ago

    The posts are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our life-time.

  • elouboub@kbin.social
    18·
    3 years ago

    However Meredith Whittaker, the president of Signal, said that they were “more optimistic than we were when we began engaging with the UK government”.

    So they aren’t leaving the UK? I’m confused…

      • HipPriest@kbin.social
        10·
        3 years ago

        WhatsApp certainly won’t, they own the UK chat app market and it’s not like they genuinely give a shit about privacy.

        The others - remains to be seen.