Jump to content
Why become a member? ×
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

Will Basschat survive the Online Safety Act?


fretmeister

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Hellzero said:

By the way, is there a law proposal to ban or control VPN traffic in the U.K.?

 

Nah, that was me expressing amazement that no-one in government's ever proposed it, to my knowledge.

 

It's actually surprising from the perspective that it's exactly the sort of thing the tabloid redtops would love and trumpet about for weeks, regardless of the reality that it couldn't/wouldn't happen. I do think there's a genuine possibility that our politicians don't know what VPNs are or understand them enough to have thought of it, and the Moral Panic points they would score. Never mind TOR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems that the NSPCC are in favour of it as I suspect are a lot of children's mental health professionals: the harm that social media causes children is well documented. 


I applaud the steps the Aussies are taking to protect their kids - they're clearly not in the pocket of the big tech companies like many Goverments are.

 

Driving on drugs or alcohol is not exactly allowed is it?

They stopped folk smoking in doors.

The world didn't end. Some might argue it even got better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

Seems that the NSPCC are in favour of it as I suspect are a lot of children's mental health professionals: the harm that social media causes children is well documented. 


I applaud the steps the Aussies are taking to protect their kids - they're clearly not in the pocket of the big tech companies like many Goverments are.

 

Driving on drugs or alcohol is not exactly allowed is it?

They stopped folk smoking in doors.

The world didn't end. Some might argue it even got better.

Well, the driving one hasn't stopped it though, so legislation in itself isn't the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, prowla said:

Well, the driving one hasn't stopped it though, so legislation in itself isn't the answer.

 

Sure, I agree it's not the answer in itself. But eg if drinking and driving was legal a lot more of it would happen, I suspect?

 

If the Act means our youngsters face less online abuse and harm than they might have otherwise done, then as a parent it gets my vote. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

 

Sure, I agree it's not the answer in itself. But eg if drinking and driving was legal a lot more of it would happen, I suspect?

 

If the Act means our youngsters face less online abuse and harm than they might have otherwise done, then as a parent it gets my vote. 

Whilst I am in favour of the two particular items you've quoted, there are other things which serve no purpose other than to inconvenience people.

For example: it's illegal to have a multi-tool in your car because youths in London are stabbing each other.

Slavery is illegal, but we keep hearing occurences of it.

I really don't think this proposed act will do anything of value and instead could have far-reaching, detrimental, and pernicious impacts on our society.

This is not the answer to the issue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, prowla said:

Whilst I am in favour of the two particular items you've quoted, there are other things which serve no purpose other than to inconvenience people.

For example: it's illegal to have a multi-tool in your car because youths in London are stabbing each other.

Slavery is illegal, but we keep hearing occurences of it.

I really don't think this proposed act will do anything of value and instead could have far-reaching, detrimental, and pernicious impacts on our society.

This is not the answer to the issue.

 

 

Would you rather slavery remained legal then? I appreciate its illegality may cause inconvenience for some...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that comment was more to say that some things that are illegal are so because of the 1% giving the 99% a bad name and some things (slavery) are illegal but still continue to happen despite it being abhorrent. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hellzero said:

By the way, is there a law proposal to ban or control VPN traffic in the U.K.?

 

No. As has been said, banning VPNs would be counter productive.

 

Controlling what people can access and shutting down websites that don't conform to standards (which is what the thread is about) is what is being proposed (all be it via the route of making sure everyone conforms by bringing in laws).

 

The point is if UK VPNs are being complicit then they should also be subject to the new laws.

 

How you extend that to people using offshore VPNs is another subject, but you just make it very hard for people to access offshore VPNs via the ISPs and onshore VPNs.

 

Yes sure "It's easy to build your own VPN server and anyone can do it.", but I'm sorry, it's not, you need a certain level of IT knowledge. Most people I know have enough trouble creating a simple spreadsheet in Excel. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TimR said:

I said it hasn’t stopped it (we had kids in the news just this week on laughing gas). 
That said, of course there has been a change. 
Arguably education and attitudes changed, plus detection is easier, plus people are easier to spot, plus other factors. 
I’m not sure that the people who indulge in the sort of thing being discussed here would be anything similar: there is subterfuge and conniving going on. 

Edited by prowla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ped said:

Well I’m glad you guys are getting to the bottom of the VPN issue whilst I’m googling how to survive in prison 

Are you using a VPN to cover your tracks? Search histories seem to be quite popular with authorities trying to make people seem suspect nowadays. I can see it now "Can you tell the court why you researched 'how to survive in prison' if you did not think moderating a forum for musicians, many of whom you knew to be opinionated and/or curmudgeonly and/or liable to get into detailed arguments ranging far from the original topic, was putting you in direct contravention of the law?" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, prowla said:

Whilst I am in favour of the two particular items you've quoted, there are other things which serve no purpose other than to inconvenience people.

For example: it's illegal to have a multi-tool in your car because youths in London are stabbing each other.

Slavery is illegal, but we keep hearing occurences of it.

 

You are inconvenienced by slavery being illegal?

 

If people didn't do things which are illegal then there would be no need for police or courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Grooverjr said:

Are you using a VPN to cover your tracks? Search histories seem to be quite popular with authorities trying to make people seem suspect nowadays. I can see it now "Can you tell the court why you researched 'how to survive in prison' if you did not think moderating a forum for musicians, many of whom you knew to be opinionated and/or curmudgeonly and/or liable to get into detailed arguments ranging far from the original topic, was putting you in direct contravention of the law?" 

 

By the same token, the very act of using a VPN to cover your tracks would be inherently suspicious. If you've got nothing to hide, etc...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the best way to keep Ped out of prison is simply for us to not start posting illegal comments?

 

Of course the corollary is true, and a co-ordinated attack by hundreds of  fake accounts using VPNs from abroad could overwhelm the moderators, make compliance impossible and drive him straight into the arms of OFCOM

 

 

(In practice he's completely safe as what would actually happen is we would get distracted by asking what breed of pigeons are best for metal)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there no option to have some kind of blanket statement that says 'by using this site we agree to not sue Ped for any infringements of this new ridiculous act'? 

 

I for one will find a different reason to sue Ped, I don't need help with that! 

 

I also think that Ped, much like Brooks, is an institutional man, and actually can't function outside of prison. The twist to all of this is that this act was designed by Ped to keep him in prison...

 

'Ped Was Here'. 

Edited by binky_bass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...