New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
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.
Take a eating disorder support group on Facebook, it might be a resource to help people and there could be posts that some deem harmful. The worry is Facebook would just ban all groups like this.
There needed to be several smaller more defined bills, rather than this huge unworkable one.
As others have said, it sounds like it's been written up by people who don't use the internet very often. Sadly the ones who want to use the internet for nefarious purposes will know all the workarounds anyway.
Hmmm 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.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
That's not a good thing, whether or not "prevention of terrorism" is cited as the need, and used as the reason that idiots blindly push it through. It will either cause Meta and other "legitimate" vendors to simply withdraw apps like Whatsapp from the UK altogether (and meanwhile proper dodgy underground messaging apps that the real criminals use will not be touched at all) OR before you know it "government agencies" will mysteriously and quietly extend to things like the DVLA, or Doris and Alf at the local parish council ...
No, they backed out of that and removed it from the bill. Apple and Facebook said they'd stop services otherwise
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
lol, who decides when it is "technical feasible" though? Or whether the information sought falls under "exploitation and abuse" or not?No, they backed out of that and removed it from the bill. Apple and Facebook said they'd stop services otherwise
View attachment 2492260
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's just another thing left up to interpretation.
If it's out then take it out properly.
They've decided it's not technically feasible at the moment, I'd imagine it never will be and they left in with all the other wishful thinking. That'll be the end of several apps and people would move to ones outside of their jurisdiction.
Absolute state of a bill.
Absolute state of a bill.
You are more trusting than I am! 
Isn’t the problem that it’s fusty old people with no understanding of how the internet works that are trying to do this?
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
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
Sure they might do something about the popular porn websites (which are all owned by one company), but that's the thin end of the wedge. What about all the private groups and end to end encrypted stuff?
To make any steps towards improving things they first need to accept the limitations and what is feasibly possible.
It'll be delayed and delayed until it has the smallest of affects and does precious little.
How about getting on with fining these influencers who brazenly break the advertising rules every single day and face nothing?
It's just about making a very select group of lucky individuals very very rich by taking government (=taxpayer) money, pretending to try to implement this ill thought out garbage. Or offering "consultancy" on it. Everybody knows it isn't going to make any difference whatsoever, and that it totally ignores the real sources of what they're calling "harmful material", but it doesn't matter so long as they pretend to try to do something. Think Michelle Mone / Matt Hancock levels of utter scammery.
As someone who has many, many years in the adult fim industry, I can tell you that it will never work. Pornographers have always been one step ahead from the 15 minute rollers of the 1960's through to the video age of the 80's and 90's and then to the internet.
You can't police the internet - and by trying to all you do is drive it underground and create the clandestine culture that used to exist.
Kev1974 hit the nail on the head - this is just another example of money making. Watch as the media whips up stories about pornography in the coming months to try and sway public opinion. The problem they'll have is not much of the public really care, pornography has become normalised. This will soon fizzle out, and another harebrained scheme will come into play just like before - but all the while someone will be getting rich rom us taxpayers.
Reminds of when Lord Longford released his report on porn back in the 70's - a committee toured Soho and Europe looking at pornography, all being paid by the government. Nothing came of it.
You can't police the internet - and by trying to all you do is drive it underground and create the clandestine culture that used to exist.
Kev1974 hit the nail on the head - this is just another example of money making. Watch as the media whips up stories about pornography in the coming months to try and sway public opinion. The problem they'll have is not much of the public really care, pornography has become normalised. This will soon fizzle out, and another harebrained scheme will come into play just like before - but all the while someone will be getting rich rom us taxpayers.
Reminds of when Lord Longford released his report on porn back in the 70's - a committee toured Soho and Europe looking at pornography, all being paid by the government. Nothing came of it.
Let’s hope the facial recognition catches them as they log in and not mid movie 
That’s the start of it!
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
---
- Redesign their systems to ensure a high level of privacy, security, and safety of minors;"
---
- Stop presenting targeted advertisement based on profiling of sensitive data (such as ethnic origin, political opinions or sexual orientation)
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 .
From an outsiders view it's massively confusing, seems like it's not much less confusing for those in said countries.
With this EU stuff they seem to announce it, then it has years of delays. Will be interesting to see how it's handled.
It took over 10 years to force apple to use a universal plug.