Online age checks must be in force from today

[IwantToRetire]

• Tech firms must introduce age checks to prevent children from accessing porn, self-harm, suicide and eating disorder content
• Bluesky, Discord, Grindr, Reddit and X among latest firms to commit to age-gating, while Ofcom lines up targets for enforcement
• Sites and apps where children spend most time must make their feeds safer

Sites and apps which allow harmful content must protect children from accessing it from the end of this week, Ofcom has warned, as the deadline approaches for tech firms to comply with new rules.

The changes mean that risky sites and apps – large and small – must use highly effective ‘age gating’ methods to identify which users are children, and then prevent them from accessing pornography, as well as self-harm, suicide and eating disorder content.

Continues at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/online-age-checks-must-be-in-force-from-tomorrow

I must admit I haven't been following this closely, but thought some on FWR might have concerns or wonder what it is, and in fact will it in anyway help protect children, and particularly girls, from sexualised content, and being stalked. And no doubt each week, some new male generated app or whatever created to lure trusting young people into serious and harmful situations.

I agree with you. It is likely to cover political matters e.g. thinking sex is real would have been banned under this legislation more than likely as 'dangerous and harmful'.
Porn is pretty obvious. I suspect this Act is a Trojan horse to let in censorship but also a way of preventing banning pornography and making it really hard to access - which, for some reason, is seen to be censorship (look where the money is!) and therefore 'bad'. So the stuff governments would prefer not to be discussed will get censored whilst violent porn etc which dehumanises mostly women (and some men) will be allowed through on grounds of 'freedom of speech'.
It would also help if children did not have access to phones at such a young age and if parents put blocks on to prevent access to harmful content.

Apparently there as been an increase in the number of people downloading (?) VPNs. ☹️

Which need no age checks ....

I had an age verification pop up signing into BlueSky the other day and wondered what it was!
Yes Redditors (males in general) are going bonkers over this. Personally I think it’s a good thing. I always had the highest level on my router when my kids were young.

Even if they did, people can set up their own VPN (although this takes a little tech know-how).

Personally I think this is a train wreck of a bill. People without VPNs are also unable to access support groups online about stopping smoking, alcohol, self-harm and others unless they do the verification. Alcoholics no-longer Anonymous.

Couldn't this create harm if it prevents or discourages people from accessing anonymous support groups they were reliant on?

Yeah, the more I browse the less happy I am about this.

Opened YouTube and my homepage is empty. As in literally nothing!
Had been watching lots on the migrant protests previously so the algorithm must have had me in 18+ land.

I thought have these all been deleted? I search Epping protest and it came up.
Youtube is not asking me to verify age to watch these. But it has decided not to show me these on my feed. Or show me ANYTHING at all for that matter.

So now I am browsing and thinking what else am I missing. We are literally not seeing the internet anymore.

It is worrying. This is a curtailment of freedom and I am now wondering whether I live in new China.

Join the club and get a VPN.

Or the TOR browser if staying logged in isn't needed (TOR was designed from the start and from the ground up for privacy, it will never ask for verification).

Some vpn generating app the download loads have gone up 1000% in the last few weeks

I'm an old dinosaur and far from tech savvy. To me, the on line safety bill is a step in the right direction for protecting children from online harm. I spent years when my kids were growing up trying to monitor my kids online viewing and keep up to date with age restrictions.

Now I'm seeing a lot of criticism of this bill and accusations that the government is using it to push through more draconian restrictions. One of these being restricting the reporting of protests and court cases of certain sensitive subjects. Who is it that seems a topic sensitive? Is this something to be worried about? People who show concern are being labelled far right but I have no trust in Starmer.

freespeechunion.org/criticising-the-online-safety-act-puts-you-on-the-side-of-jimmy-savile-says-labour-minister/

Children (16 and 17 years olds) are to be given the vote, yet they are not allowed to view certain parliamentary debates as they are too young.

It is bizarre that voters are not allowed to know the details of issues like assisted suicide because it is deemed harmful content.

It is bizarre and feels off. Another aspect that concerns me is the reports that the new bill will give power for just about any legal content that is deemed sensitive (by who) to be restricted without debate. I need to read more around it.

Interesting to note the supporters of the bill are all non tech savvy, and the people who are tech savvy are strongly opposed to it.

I guess because it sounds good on paper but just doesn't go to plan when attempts are made to actually implement it, like some other laws.

It's like any other change in Internet usage. When we were teens boys were googling very graphic "viral" of the time videos (2 girls 1 _) etc at school and it was readily accessible. I would assume even before this bill passing that was no longer the case as google was made more censored over time.

People opposing it because "teens will find a way" are missing the point. Teens could get on the dark Web if they wanted, but not being able to easily means the vast majority don't.
I think the tech savvy opposing it are doing so more because they view it as an inconvenience to themselves being heavier Internet users, rather than thinking it won't change anything.

Yes google is heavily censored at this point (and also extremely bad for users' privacy), but guess what it's not the only search engine on the internet.

Duckduckgo has became a popular alternative for the tech-savvy as a less restrictive alternative that doesn't track and log everything you do and who you are.

Is this bill going to prevent all the obscene videos on insta, tiktok, fb feeds? I can be scrolling mindlessly and come across violent beatings, animal cruelty, car crashes etc etc that I never asked to see.

No it won't "prevent" or remove anything. It just means verify your ID and have your ID connected to literally everything you do online. Or use a VPN.

I enjoy reading some er ‘spicy’ literature and had to do a Face ID in Reddit were there is a a good subreddit which users write

Of course newspapers aren't covered - children can read them.

I really dont think this is anything to do with those who consider themselves tech savvy and those who admit they aren't.

The onus is on the platforms, whether X, Youtube or whoever to ensure that pornographic material in not publicly available.

As to censorship, this is happening anyway, on most social media platforms.

So getting all upset about loosing freedom of expression isn't really the rationale for doing it.

I just doubt the capacity of those entrusted to enforce this, to be able to do it.

Any more than I trust all those who have suddernly discovered VPN being able to install it.

Wouldn't a more useful discussion be to try and consider in which way can any of us, or any authority actually stop pornography being so easily available on line.

This 💯

The comments on Reddit are cracking me up, they're so over the top.

I recognise the law is about protecting children, and there are some unintended consequences. However, if it reduces the extent to which adults view porn, is that a bad thing, given the impacts on those coerced to be in such material?

This bill was never about pornography, it was about online "harms" which included pornography and everything else someone deems "harmful". A particular issue was around suicide promotion, because Ian Russell is heavily involved. Unfortunately "harm" is an ambiguous term.

David Cameron introduced a law requiring all new broadband contracts to turn on pornography filtering by default. We need to stop pretending that there was no way to filter pornography until one week ago.

What is most interesting is that there is clear overreach, like the censoring of parliamentary debates and the government aren't saying that there needs to be improvements so that that doesn't happen, but rather saying if you don't like the censorship you support Jimmy Savile.

Those that want to view porn can download a browser with a VPN included (there is nothing complex about setting it up).

Currently it is the people not interested in viewing porn, but reading about cider, watching parliamentary debates (or anything related to the grooming gangs) who are being impacted.

David Cameron introduced a law requiring all new broadband contracts to turn on pornography filtering by default.

And yet premium rate phone numbers had to be allowed by default back in the 1990s. If a parent wanted them blocked they had to ask (and pay). And many parents discovered this only after a £2,000 phone bill one month. (It also "wasn't possible" to have a cap on a phone bill either). There were many companies whose business model required kids to call premium rate numbers "by mistake" so they could charge the billpayer.