Why is everything updating it's terns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
On topic but not adding to the discussion... can a mod please fix the title? It should be "its" not "it's" and I find it irksome :p and obviously spell "terms" right.
 
Last edited:
shifty_uk said:
Because you’re being asked to verify your ID to watch porn? Which let’s be honest this is the reason the majority are so up in the arms. Give over, that’s your choice, no one is forcing you to access these sites.

The next time you’re in the supermarket, don’t look up, you might notice all the CCTV cameras watching you and please don’t use that loyalty card, someone might see the tissue brand you’re buying.
Click to expand...

Well except Ofcom is already hounding wikipedia and a bunch of other innocent websites (a few sites have been forced to close as they couldn't afford the costs of compliance) in the name of "child protection"...

The law is already seeing over-reach.

But a lot of forign based porn sites are just ignoring them. So we have random sites in the UK being shut down and porn sites dodging the OSA entirely. If it carries on like this we'll only have porn left :D
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
Well except Ofcom is already hounding wikipedia and a bunch of other innocent websites (a few sites have been forced to close as they couldn't afford the costs of compliance) in the name of "child protection"...

The law is already seeing over-reach.

But a lot of forign based porn sites are just ignoring them. So we have random sites in the UK being shut down and porn sites dodging the OSA entirely. If it carries on like this we'll only have porn left :D..
Click to expand...
Wikipedia has definitely hosted - and probably still hosts - images that fall well and truly foul of the law. That likely ends in an argument about the encyclopedic value of certain content, but there’s definitely some pretty sketchy stuff there. It’s not a wonder they’d be targeted. It’s a very grey area.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Wikipedia has definitely hosted - and probably still hosts - images that fall well and truly foul of the law. That likely ends in an argument about the encyclopedic value of certain content, but there’s definitely some pretty sketchy stuff there. It’s not a wonder they’d be targeted. It’s a very grey area.
Click to expand...

And Wikipedia says if they have to, they will just block or limit traffic from the UK. To push the site in to a lower catagory for enforcement. Yay OSA...

4Chan and a few others have told Ofcom where to stick it and it appears there is nothing they can actually do.

Not that any of this has a point as everyone is now using VPNs. Which can't effectively be blocked and now Ofcom can't even monitor traffic.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
And Wikipedia says if they have to, they will just block or limit traffic from the UK. To push the site in to a lower catagory for enforcement. Yay OSA...

Not that any of this has a point as everyone is now using VPNs. Which can't effectively be blocked.
Click to expand...

Solution to that- a government run wikipedia.

Look at what trumpy is doing to whitehouse site, removing black servicemen photographic evidence and what happened during slavery era.
 
Nasher said:
And Wikipedia says if they have to, they will just block or limit traffic from the UK. To push the site in to a lower catagory for enforcement. Yay OSA...

Not that any of this has a point as everyone is now using VPNs. Which can't effectively be blocked.
Click to expand...
Be the at as it may, that’s not because Wikipedia is entirely “innocent” here. There’s definitely images on there which I imagine would earn me the most perma of bans if I were to post them in the random image thread here, for example.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Be the at as it may, that’s not because Wikipedia is entirely “innocent” here. There’s definitely images on there which I imagine would earn me the most perma of bans if I were to post them in the random image thread here, for example.
Click to expand...

Nothing you can't see in a science, medical or history book. You don't need ID for those.
 
Noxia said:
Next thing you know they'll be asking for age verification to stop kids watching Terminator 2.
Click to expand...

I have my own views on parental responsibility here but looking at it objectively.. it’s an 18 right? So if a kid wanted to buy a DVD copy in store, they’d get ID’d right? Why is that any different? Should we just let kids buy cigarettes and magazines off the top shelf too? We should just let kids into nightclubs whilst we’re at it.

I don’t see anyone outside shops with pitchforks?

Nasher said:
Well except Ofcom is already hounding wikipedia and a bunch of other innocent websites (a few sites have been forced to close as they couldn't afford the costs of compliance) in the name of "child protection"...

The law is already seeing over-reach.

But a lot of forign based porn sites are just ignoring them. So we have random sites in the UK being shut down and porn sites dodging the OSA entirely. If it carries on like this we'll only have porn left :D
Click to expand...

I was asking about privately owned, commercially operated social media sites that need to cater for all and have responsibilities for the safety of users and minors, not Wikipedia.

A tech forum is the worst place to debate these things because naturally, some of you think you can surf the internet like Jason Borne, anonymous, behind your VPN’s, no responsibilities.
 
shifty_uk said:
A tech forum is the worst place to debate these things because naturally, some of you think you can surf the internet like Jason Borne, anonymous, behind your VPN’s, no responsibilities.
Click to expand...

It's not the surfers, it's the posters, some of which are decidedly dodgy in terms of democracy and torture and terrorism and extremist topics like FGM, suicide etc. I don't really care if such sites disappear to the human good.

I don't use a VPN and thus far have not missed out as far as I can tell.
 
shifty_uk said:
I was asking about privately owned, commercially operated social media sites that need to cater for all and have responsibilities for the safety of users and minors, not Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
The difficulty comes in trying to write legislation that catches the privately owned, commercially operated social media sites that we think are a problem, without catching whatever we think Wikipedia is. And if there is a gap for Wikipedia to exist in, then the social media sites will start to look a lot more like it, in order to escape the legislation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom