On the UK Online Safety Bill

[EssenceOfChieftain]

So Britain's Online Safety Bill

You must be registered to see the links

.

The bill

You must be registered to see the links

social media platforms to rapidly remove "illegal content" and to prevent minors from accessing "harmful and age-inappropriate content".
In particular, sites that primarily host pornographic material will be placed under scrutiny and compelled to implement age verification systems.
Non-compliant platforms and services may face fines of up to £18 million (around 22 million USD), website blocking, and even legal action courtesy of Ofcom, UK's communications regulator.
There are other aspects to the bill as well, such as the criminalization of non-consensual deepfakes and a provision that could necessitate automated scanning of end-to-end encrypted messaging (

You must be registered to see the links

).

Thoughts? It remains to be seen what kind of impact the OSB will have on sites like F95, and whether it will set a precedent for stricter internet regulation in Europe and elsewhere.

EDIT: Other sections of potential concern, as pointed out by WhitePhantom.

 

[baneini]

Heres hoping F95 bans all UK IP addresses.

 

[Icarus Media]

Heres hoping F95 bans all UK IP addresses.

 

[Icarus Media]

WhitePhantom am I right in thinking there would be an issue of jurisdiction here vis a vis the power of the bill to affect the site? Section 205 does try to make an external judicial powergrab at least from my reading:

205 Extra-territorial application (1) References in this Act to an internet service, a user-to-user service or a search service include such a service provided from outside the United Kingdom (as well as such a service provided from within the United Kingdom). (2) The power to require the production of documents by an information notice includes power to require the production of documents held outside the United Kingdom. (3) The power conferred by section 107 includes power to require the attendance for interview of an individual who is outside the United Kingdom. (4) Sections 134(9) and 151(11) (requirements enforceable in civil proceedings against a person) apply whether or not the person is in the United Kingdom.

Full bill in attachments for anyone interested.

Otherwise for UK subjects, would the option be a VPN to disguise UK based IP addresses?

 

[Icarus Media]

65 User identity verification (1) A provider of a Category 1 service must offer all adult users of the service the option to verify their identity (if identity verification is not required for access to the service). (2) The verification process may be of any kind (and in particular, it need not require documentation to be provided).

So from my reading the ID verification is optional and need not require any documentation or established format?

 

[WhitePhantom]

WhitePhantom am I right in thinking there would be an issue of jurisdiction here vis a vis the power of the bill to affect the site? Section 166 does try to make an external judicial powergrab at least from my reading:

205 Extra-territorial application (1) References in this Act to an internet service, a user-to-user service or a search service include such a service provided from outside the United Kingdom (as well as such a service provided from within the United Kingdom). (2) The power to require the production of documents by an information notice includes power to require the production of documents held outside the United Kingdom. (3) The power conferred by section 107 includes power to require the attendance for interview of an individual who is outside the United Kingdom. (4) Sections 134(9) and 151(11) (requirements enforceable in civil proceedings against a person) apply whether or not the person is in the United Kingdom.

Full bill in attachments for anyone interested.

Otherwise for UK subjects, would the option be a VPN to disguise UK based IP addresses?

Yeah that is exactly what they are doing, trying to make a world-wide law and its an absolute crock of shit, but if another Government is in league with the UK Government they could approve it regardless.

The UK Government cannot make a law that binds somebody in the USA, that should be completely illegal in the USA (but its not illegal for them to try in the UK) and the US Courts should protect their citizens from it, but that's what they're trying to do here.

So if an American broke this bill in America, the UK Government could try and prosecute them and they give themselves the power to do so under that Act.

Now you'd hope the US Courts getting the request would go "get fucked you have no power here", but then imagine the person they're going after is an enemy of the woke scum that rule both countries, Alex Jones, Russel Brand, Andrew Tate, anybody with a brain that knows the only good politicians are dead ones etc, then if the Country gives the go-ahead they could be arrested and extradited to the UK. We've seen Governors repeatedly ignore Americans Constitutional Rights in places like New Mexico, so what's to stop a Judge doing the same?

It's one of the most tyrannical bills ever created, every single person involved in its creation is a cunt, but its going to depend on how your country behaves. Russia aren't going to be sad cucks handing over their own citizens because the scum in British Parliament demand them to, so it won't affect Russians at all, NATO countries on the other hand... have to wait and see.

Yet another note in a very big list in why everybody who doesn't like how China is should GTFO of the West as fast as possible.

 

[WhitePhantom]

This bill also potentially makes these an offence you could go to jail for:

Example 1:

Text Message to your Mum:

"Hi Mum, I really don't think you should get that vaccine, you've had a bad reaction to them in the past and there's been a lot of reports that they aren't safe."

You could now go to jail for 51 weeks for sending that under Section 151.

Example 2:

Direct Message on Instagram to a 30 year old man after your 14 year old daughter showed you a message where they added her and were asking for nudes:

"You stay away from her you sick cunt, she's 14! If I ever catch you messaging her again I'm going to find out where you live and break your fucking legs pedo scum."

You could now go to jail for 5 years for sending that message under Section 152.

Like Porn isn't even the biggest problem with this bill, you can now be jailed for sharing "false information" privately and the Judge is the sole arbiter of what "false information" is. So if I message my friend something we both believe is true and a Judge says its not true and dangerous... we could both go to jail.

 

[Pamphlet]

It's a very stupid bill. The most stupid thing is that they seem to think it's in some way enforceable.

 

[jimploke]

This looks like really bad news for people in the UK who may end up blocked on some platforms. Completely unfair since we have had no choice in this and most of the population are against it.

 

[Rafster]

A bill to regulate internet in all its extension, in order to "protect the kids" , even the australians look amateur compared to it.

 

[Icarus Media]

This bill also potentially makes these an offence you could go to jail for:

Example 1:

Text Message to your Mum:

"Hi Mum, I really don't think you should get that vaccine, you've had a bad reaction to them in the past and there's been a lot of reports that they aren't safe."

You could now go to jail for 51 weeks for sending that under Section 151.

Example 2:

Direct Message on Instagram to a 30 year old man after your 14 year old daughter showed you a message where they added her and were asking for nudes:

"You stay away from her you sick cunt, she's 14! If I ever catch you messaging her again I'm going to find out where you live and break your fucking legs pedo scum."

You could now go to jail for 5 years for sending that message under Section 152.

Like Porn isn't even the biggest problem with this bill, you can now be jailed for sharing "false information" privately and the Judge is the sole arbiter of what "false information" is. So if I message my friend something we both believe is true and a Judge says its not true and dangerous... we could both go to jail.

180 False communications offence (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person sends a message (see section 183), (b) the message conveys information that the person knows to be false, (c) at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience, and (d) the person has no reasonable excuse for sending the message. (2) For the purposes of this offence an individual is a “likely audience” of a message if, at the time the message is sent, it is reasonably foreseeable that the individual— (a) would encounter the message, or (b) in the online context, would encounter a subsequent message forwarding or sharing the content of the message. (3) In a case where several or many individuals are a likely audience, it is not necessary for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) that the person intended to cause harm to any one of them in particular (or to all of them). (4) See section 181 for exemptions from the offence under this section. (5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both); (b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).

Under Section 180 subsection (B) it requires the person to know that the information is false to give rise to an offence. simple solution to that might possibly be "I didn't know bruv", case dismissed?

 

[Icarus Media]

182 Threatening communications offence (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person sends a message (see section 183), (b) the message conveys a threat of death or serious harm, and (c) at the time of sending it, the person— (i) intended an individual encountering the message to fear that the threat would be carried out, or (ii) was reckless as to whether an individual encountering the message would fear that the threat would be carried out. (2) “Serious harm” means— (a) serious injury amounting to grievous bodily harm within the meaning of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, (b) rape, (c) assault by penetration within the meaning of section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, or (d) serious financial loss. (3) In proceedings for an offence under this section relating to a threat of serious financial loss, it is a defence for the person to show that— (a) the threat was used to reinforce a reasonable demand, and (b) the person reasonably believed that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Online Safety Bill Part 10 — Communications offences 160 (4) If evidence is adduced which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to the defence under subsection (3), the court must assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not. (5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both); (b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both); (c) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).

The threatening message one appear correct though as you say.

 

[bobdav90]

180 False communications offence (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person sends a message (see section 183), (b) the message conveys information that the person knows to be false, (c) at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience, and (d) the person has no reasonable excuse for sending the message. (2) For the purposes of this offence an individual is a “likely audience” of a message if, at the time the message is sent, it is reasonably foreseeable that the individual— (a) would encounter the message, or (b) in the online context, would encounter a subsequent message forwarding or sharing the content of the message. (3) In a case where several or many individuals are a likely audience, it is not necessary for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) that the person intended to cause harm to any one of them in particular (or to all of them). (4) See section 181 for exemptions from the offence under this section. (5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both); (b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).

Under Section 180 subsection (B) it requires the person to know that the information is false to give rise to an offence. simple solution to that might possibly be "I didn't know bruv", case dismissed?

WHat if its the sharing of the fact a certain person's existence is deemed as a threat for example Jon Venables is convicted pedophile that after his release the UK government has put him it witness protection program.ANyone who takes pictures f hiom and shows him online is arrested in the UK.THe UK government has repeatedly tried to expidte people to the UK for showing this man's whereabouts.THis could be used for a stronger legal action to get people who the UK government doesn't like.

 

[anne O'nymous]

So Britain's Online Safety Bill

You must be registered to see the links

.

Glad to see that France isn't the only country where politicians are nothing more than bunch of stupids ignorant guys who want to regulate internet from their couch.

The intent is good (protect children, don't let people spread dangerous lies like if they were scientific facts, etc.) but the realisation is positively stupid and totally ignorant of what a world wide network is and imply.

The bill

You must be registered to see the links

social media platforms to rapidly remove "illegal content" and to prevent minors from accessing "harmful and age-inappropriate content".

Something that the current laws already cover.
Website hosting porn content need to have at least an age gate, and they are strongly encouraged to apply any decision the justice can have take. And, of course, 95% of them comply, because most Western world have the same kind of laws and they would looks ridiculous if they couldn't operate there.
It apply for France and I'm sure that it also apply for the UK.

It remains to be seen what kind of impact the OSB will have on sites like F95, and whether it will set a precedent for stricter internet regulation in Europe and elsewhere.

The

You must be registered to see the links

is already a thing since more than a year ; and a bit more serious and thoughts beforehand.

EDIT: As pointed out by WhitePhantom, another cause for concern is a highly arbitrary section of the bill which makes the sharing of "false information" a criminal offence.

I'm pretty sure that even in the UK it was already the case. The difference is that, until now, it a judge that had to decide of the qualification, not a politician in his couch. And it's of course that difference that is concerning.

 

[WhitePhantom]

180 False communications offence (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person sends a message (see section 183), (b) the message conveys information that the person knows to be false, (c) at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience, and (d) the person has no reasonable excuse for sending the message. (2) For the purposes of this offence an individual is a “likely audience” of a message if, at the time the message is sent, it is reasonably foreseeable that the individual— (a) would encounter the message, or (b) in the online context, would encounter a subsequent message forwarding or sharing the content of the message. (3) In a case where several or many individuals are a likely audience, it is not necessary for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) that the person intended to cause harm to any one of them in particular (or to all of them). (4) See section 181 for exemptions from the offence under this section. (5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both); (b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).

Under Section 180 subsection (B) it requires the person to know that the information is false to give rise to an offence. simple solution to that might possibly be "I didn't know bruv", case dismissed?

If you look at how incredibly pro the narrative the Courts were during the Covid, there's no doubt in my mind they'd respond to that with something along the lines of "there are daily TV updates, advertisements on buses/billboards and informational pamphlets distributed to all addresses telling you the vaccine is safe and therefore I as a reasonable person believe you knew the information you're giving is false."

Just think back to early 2000s when the Labour Government lied repeatedly about Iraq having WMDs and went and murdered over a million Iraqis on the back of their own lie.

You could use this act to jail somebody who posted something anti-war on the basis "there are no WMDs" is "false information" (as it would have been at the time) and that claiming the army was murdering people on the back of a lie would cause non-trivial psychological damage to members of the Armed Forces.

Another example I've just thought of, given the Conservatives have fully embraced media cancel culture this week, if you put a post up supporting Russel Brand against his false allegations, you could potentially be jailed for sharing "false information" and causing psychological harm to the liars "victims" with your post. People like Tate etc could potentially be jailed for creating videos denying their "crimes" and publishing them online where the "victims" could see them.

Like the possibilities within this act are absolutely abhorrent, its entirely subjective and down to a Judge, and Judges in the UK are bigoted pricks that always side with MSM Narrative, and the harm can be "psychological". So you don't even need to prove any harm you just have to have somebody say "this made me really depressed".

It's an absolute joke and everybody involved will rot in Hell for eternity when the Earth is graced with their removal.

 

[peterppp]

This bill also potentially makes these an offence you could go to jail for:

Example 1:

Text Message to your Mum:

"Hi Mum, I really don't think you should get that vaccine, you've had a bad reaction to them in the past and there's been a lot of reports that they aren't safe."

You could now go to jail for 51 weeks for sending that under Section 151.

aside from what icarus media said, section 180 (not 151 as you claimed) also states that "c) at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience."
sure, a stupid anti-vaxxer could cause harm by advising his mom not to take a vaccine that could protect her, but that the anti-vaxxer meant to cause that harm? we know stupid anti-vaxxers exist. the court would need evidence that the anti-vaxxer actually wanted to harm his mom with this message

you're crying because stupid anti-vaxxers and other stupid people aren't allowed to spread their false information, lies and conspiracy theories. this bill is too good to people like you actually, since it says you need to believe it to be false.

Example 2:

Direct Message on Instagram to a 30 year old man after your 14 year old daughter showed you a message where they added her and were asking for nudes:

"You stay away from her you sick cunt, she's 14! If I ever catch you messaging her again I'm going to find out where you live and break your fucking legs pedo scum."

You could now go to jail for 5 years for sending that message under Section 152.

section 182 (not 152 as you claim) wants to punish you for sending threats of death or serious harm, and you have a problem with that?

crying because you aren't allowed to harm people online with lies or death threats. what's wrong with you?

 

[Icarus Media]

section 180 (not 151 as you claimed)

section 182 (not 152 as you claim)

I'll hold my hands up here, My initial post attachment was the first edition of the bill and later on I edited the post with the most recent version after the amendments from the House of Lords, so the numbering will have changed.

 

[Pretentious Goblin]

sure, a stupid anti-vaxxer could cause harm by advising his mom not to take a vaccine that could protect her, but that the anti-vaxxer meant to cause that harm? we know stupid anti-vaxxers exist. the court would need evidence that the anti-vaxxer actually wanted to harm his mom with this message

The mom has the final say over what injections she takes, regardless of who tells her what. It's called personal responsibility. She can choose to listen to the medical community or her son, that's her choice to make and no court has any business interfering. The notion that the government is the sole arbiter of what's true and that differing opinions are subject to censorship / prosecution is extremely disturbing, I don't know how some people can't see that.

 

[rangaru]

you're crying because stupid anti-vaxxers and other stupid people aren't allowed to spread their false information, lies and conspiracy theories

Stupid anti-vaxxers can't talk to their moms.

 

[Artemissu]

section 182 (not 152 as you claim) wants to punish you for sending threats of death or serious harm, and you have a problem with that?

Of course he has a problem with that, as do i, and as should *you* as well. Section 182, like a lot of laws nowadays, fails to take proper context in consideration. Yeah, punishing someone for sending death threats or serious harm is, as a rule of thumb, a good thing... Problem is however, every rule has their exceptions. Jailing a concerned father for defending his 14-year-old daughter against a sexual predator praying on his child is nothing short of absurd... Sure, he might have implied on his messages that he'd take extreme measures if worst comes to worst, but i ask you, what father wouldn't? Are we really going to start concerning about what a clearly distraught father says online to some creep, that is preying on his children?!

As someone excellently pointed out above, laws must concern the intent of the agent, not be an all-encompassing institution that will inevitably lead to injustices committed for the sake of our children's protection (heh, how ironic...)