- cross-posted to:
- Technology@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- Technology@programming.dev
Long Response
I would like to thank all those who signed the petition. It is right that the regulatory regime for in scope online services takes a proportionate approach, balancing the protection of users from online harm with the ability for low-risk services to operate effectively and provide benefits to users.
The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.
Proportionality is a core principle of the Act and is in-built into its duties. As regulator for the online safety regime, Ofcom must consider the size and risk level of different types and kinds of services when recommending steps providers can take to comply with requirements. Duties in the Communications Act 2003 require Ofcom to act with proportionality and target action only where it is needed.
Some duties apply to all user-to-user and search services in scope of the Act. This includes risk assessments, including determining if children are likely to access the service and, if so, assessing the risks of harm to children. While many services carry low risks of harm, the risk assessment duties are key to ensuring that risky services of all sizes do not slip through the net of regulation. For example, the Government is very concerned about small platforms that host harmful content, such as forums dedicated to encouraging suicide or self-harm. Exempting small services from the Act would mean that services like these forums would not be subject to the Act’s enforcement powers. Even forums that might seem harmless carry potential risks, such as where adults come into contact with child users.
Once providers have carried out their duties to conduct risk assessments, they must protect the users of their service from the identified risks of harm. Ofcom’s illegal content Codes of Practice set out recommended measures to help providers comply with these obligations, measures that are tailored in relation to both size and risk. If a provider’s risk assessment accurately determines that the risks faced by users are low across all harms, Ofcom’s Codes specify that they only need some basic measures, including:
- easy-to-find, understandable terms and conditions;
- a complaints tool that allows users to report illegal material when they see it, backed up by a process to deal with those complaints;
- the ability to review content and take it down if it is illegal (or breaches their terms of service);
- a specific individual responsible for compliance, who Ofcom can contact if needed.
Where a children’s access assessment indicates a platform is likely to be accessed by children, a subsequent risk assessment must be conducted to identify measures for mitigating risks. Like the Codes of Practice on illegal content, Ofcom’s recently issued child safety Codes also tailor recommendations based on risk level. For example, highly effective age assurance is recommended for services likely accessed by children that do not already prohibit and remove harmful content such as pornography and suicide promotion. Providers of services likely to be accessed by UK children were required to complete their assessment, which Ofcom may request, by 24 July.
On 8 July, Ofcom’s CEO wrote to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology noting Ofcom’s responsibility for regulating a wide range of highly diverse services, including those run by businesses, but also charities, community and voluntary groups, individuals, and many services that have not been regulated before.
The letter notes that the Act’s aim is not to penalise small, low-risk services trying to comply in good faith. Ofcom – and the Government – recognise that many small services are dynamic small businesses supporting innovation and offer significant value to their communities. Ofcom will take a sensible approach to enforcement with smaller services that present low risk to UK users, only taking action where it is proportionate and appropriate, and will focus on cases where the risk and impact of harm is highest.
Ofcom has developed an extensive programme of work designed to support a smoother journey to compliance, particularly for smaller firms. This has been underpinned by interviews, workshops and research with a diverse range of online services to ensure the tools meet the needs of different types of services. Ofcom’s letter notes its ‘guide for services’ guidance and tools hub, and its participation in events run by other organisations and networks including those for people running small services, as well as its commitment to review and improve materials and tools to help support services to create a safer life online.
The Government will continue to work with Ofcom towards the full implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023, including monitoring proportionate implementation.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Well we all saw that coming.
The parental and elderly voting bloc is very hard to ignore, and those groups tend to be less privacy conscious (as well as pro-anything “protect the children”).
The only way it’s getting repealed is if enough labour voters raise a fuss. Given Reform’s messaging (i.e. repeal it) and how worried Labour are over Reform’s polling, that is likely the only lever that’ll work. However, that’s a long game - one that will take years to play out.
LibDems are against it too by the way, thankfully it’s not just Farage.
deleted by creator
“Oh no, what if our kids jack off, that would be horrible”. If it’s that bad, then take responsibility, try to convince them not to. Don’t let the government parent for you, because you won’t do it yourself. Fucking ridiculous. A similar bill was introduced in May in the US.
I grew up with relatively easy access to gore videos and shock sites, but you know what kept me safe? Knowing about them and knowing I didn’t want to watch them. Simple decent education from parents and schools would sort this problem a lot better than this mess of easily bypassed nanny state BS that is going to force people to worse places on the internet. It is a bad policy that won’t even do what it claims and will actively harm those it’s supposed to protect. And that’s even before all the privacy and freedom concerns.
“Benefit”
This word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means
The government will enact the will of the people, whether the people like it or not.
Even forums that might seem harmless carry potential risks, such as where adults come into contact with child users.
Wait until the government finds out they’re gonna have to age-restrict playing outside. What a genuine bone-dead stupid take.
they’ll need so many more cameras with built in AI face and gait recognition, and footage uploading to china. Otherwise how will they automatically fine any adult that goes within 5 meters of a children without written approval of both parents signed by a notary
When the regime ignores petitions by the public for the redress of grievances, you petition harder.
Demonstrations, Public Disobedience, Mischief, Sabotage, Terrorism.
Censorship always expands and encroaches on things important to the public. Obscenity and indecency protections eventually turn into queer erasure. Security concerns are always followed by carve-outs of civil rights.
Hit hard early.
And when peaceful protest is ignored there’s even a step after that!
Isn’t Britain the homeland of punk?
Why do you think Punk developed?
For example, the Government is very concerned about small platforms that host harmful content, such as forums dedicated to encouraging suicide or self-harm.
So they’ve identified a problem with this type of content, and the answer is to put it behind an age wall. So is it a-ok for anyone over 18 to be encouraged to self harm or commit suicide according to the government?
This is most likely because of SaSu(a suicide forum). They’ve been fighting with the uk for a long time.
What I don’t get is why it’s ok to view that at 18 but not at 17 years and 364 days. Surely just ban the site for everyone.
If only they could have that response when the TERFs come knocking. When normal people want something good they’re like “lol no get fucked losers” but when JK Rowling comes along they’re like “Of course mistress anything you want do you want a viewing box at the gas chambers?”
You’d think if they are going to being censoring things, they’d start with the full on Holocaust denial that Rowling has normalized.
The TL;DR of it is “we’re not repealing it, get fucked.”
The technology minister said on Sky News that if you was to repeal the act, you’re on the side of Jimmy Savile.
That’s where we are in all this, support this or you’re a nonce.
if you was to repeal the act, you’re on the side of Jimmy Savile.
flipping through my Big Book of Politicians and Celebrities appearing beside Jimmy Savile
Do they really want to go there?
That’s where we are in all this, support this or you’re a nonce.
That’s been the Tory approach to politics for decades. No surprise New Labour has adopted it, since they seem keen on all their other platforms.
Why? It only verifies age, no? Why would watching adult content with or without age verification be associated with Savile? Are they perhaps checking which content you specifically are consuming? So they have more than your age? Now now, couldn’t have seen that coming.
Yeah the Brits needs to re-install their governement and flush out the royals, the lords and the other elite turds
I’m not sure the royals caused this. I guess the main issue is that some democracies become too entrenched, and groups of elites take over the role of nobility, term limits doesn’t help, since to be in a position to become someone, you have to join those that already rule. Capitalism also doesn’t help and even accelerates this process. Abolishing FPTP and instituting ranked choice would be the first step I think on improving democracies, by breaking up these elite groups.
Protections? Is that what we’re calling state-sanctioned censorship these days?
The world is heading to a really dark place.
So peaceful words aren’t working? Well alright, sounds like it’s time for plan B.
“We are not interested in the voters position.”
“You plebs should know your place”
robust but proportionate are just weasel words. Who is determining the line of “robustness” or “proportionate” and can they be trusted?