Login

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
mastodon.online is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A newer server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

11K
active users

mastodon.online: AboutStatusProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.4.0-nightly.2025-03-14-security

#onlinesafetybill

2 posts1 participant0 posts today
Public *
Nicco Kunzmann

The #OpenRightsGroup have launched a petition to protect small sites in the #UK from the #OnlineSafety legislation.

action.openrightsgroup.org/sav

I am wondering what people think.

These laws were a cross-national coordinated effort: UK, USA, EU had them happening at the same time. As I understand it, EU and USA both had groups like @Chatgeheimnis work hard and it did not pass. UK was silent?

What is the state of the issue? What are admins thinking?

#OnlineSafetyBill #fediverse #law#moderation

Open Rights GroupSave our sites - Write to your MPSmall UK websites, user-to-user services and even computer games that are completely safe and well managed, are faced with difficult paperwork, risks assessments, registration and fines thanks to the Online Safety Act. Even personal blogs with comments are forced to undergo these difficult tests and compliance tasks. Getting it wrong or ignoring them could cost an operator their house – as fines can be imposed for failing to do them. As a result, many small websites in the UK are deciding to close down.
Public
Derick Rethans

With the #OnlineSafetyAct coming into force in the next two weeks, I'd like to share the assessments that we made for phpc.social, as well as the changes to our policy.

We believe that this is sufficient to comply with the Act at this moment.

This is not legal advice.

Assessment: github.com/derickr/online-safe

Policy Additions: github.com/derickr/online-safe

Actual Changes to Policy: github.com/phpcommunity/polici

These are all published under CC-BY 4.0.

Contribute to derickr/online-safety-assessments development by creating an account on GitHub.
GitHubonline-safety-assessments/mastodon-phpc.social.rst at main · derickr/online-safety-assessmentsContribute to derickr/online-safety-assessments development by creating an account on GitHub.
#OnlineSafetyBill#FediAdmin
Public
networkstring

OFCOM have replied to me about https://PornBy.email.

Sadly, as detailed as the response is it still boils down to "We don't comment on individual services" so of no help at all till enforcement come knocking.

Hi Gareth,
Ofcom cannot comment or advise on the scope of specific services. However, to assist you further in your considerations, I draw your attention to the following provisions of the Online Safety Act. In relation to a Part 3 service, Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act outlines:
"A user-to-user service is exempt if emails are the only user-generated content (other than identifying content) enabled by the service."
However, Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Act further clarifies that:
“a user-to-user service described in any of paragraphs 1 to 5 is not exempt if—
(a) regulated provider pornographic content is published or displayed on the service, and
(b) the service has links with the United Kingdom within the meaning of section 80(4).”
(See also section 4(2) and Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 which includes a similar clarification.)
This means that in addition to considering whether or not the service may be in scope of Part 3, it would be advisable for you to consider whether the service may be in scope of Part 5 of the Act (i.e. a service on which pornographic content is published or displayed by the service provider, or a ‘Part 5 service’, which could be, for example, a pay-site where a studio producing pornography owns the service and uses it to make its content available). You may in particular wish to refer to the definition of ‘regulated provider pornographic content’ set out in section 79(2):
"pornographic content that is published or displayed on the service by the provider of the service or by a person acting on behalf of the provider, including pornographic content published or displayed on the service by means of—
(a) software or an automated tool or algorithm applied by the provider or by a person acting on behalf of the provider, or
(b) an automated tool or algorithm made available on the service by the provider or by a person acting on behalf of the provider."
In making any assessments about potential Part 5 scope, p. 7-13 of the Guidance may be most relevant. Paragraphs 3.4-3.18 give guidance on the meaning of published or displayed.
You may also wish to consider the definition set out in section 226 which explains who the ‘provider’ of a Part 3 and/or Part 5 service is under the Act.
We recommend you seek independent legal advice if you are unclear whether or not the service in question may be in scope of the Act. For clarity, Ofcom cannot pre-approve a service as compliant before it is launched. It is a service provider's responsibility to understand if it is in scope and ensure its service is compliant.
Kind regards,
Ofcom Supervision Team
#onlinesafetybill#osa
Public
Adam Dalliance

On the radio as I wake they're telling me the government is constantly reviewing the #OnlineSafetyBill which sounds like good news since it's terrible onerous uworkable and likely to create walls blocking Britain from the internet.

But they're talking about strengthening it, making it even more onerous and unworkable and so everyone even more likely to just cut the connections to the UK.

Of course 😔

#ukpol
Public
Adam Dalliance

People acting like the UK Online Safety bill accidentally causes the shutdown of small independent forums, rather than that being the entire point of it: To ensure the only hosts allowed are corporations with legal departments who will censor and spy as required by government (and are likely already doing both for their own reasons anyway).

Okay, sure. They were told over and over again, but it's an accident, they didn't mean to.

Sure.

Wanna buy a bridge?

#ukpol#onlineSafetyBill
Public
Flipboard Tech Desk

The Senate has passed the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (also known as COPPA 2.0), the first major internet bills focused on protecting children online to reach that milestone in two decades.

However, the bills haven’t been without their opposition, with concerns from some groups that they could actually harm marginalized kids and limit free expression online. @theverge has more on the bills, and the next steps to making them law.

flip.it/xOSeF0

Photo collage of a photo of the US Capitol building with an image of the Constitution behind it.
The Verge · Senate passes the Kids Online Safety ActBy Lauren Feiner
#OnlineSafetyBill#Online#Tech
Public
Adam Dalliance

The BBC loves to both-sides arguments you see. They are neutral.

Except when it's banning kids from the internet. Then they only represent one side of the argument, deny that any other side could possibly exist, and insist impossible things which can't work will protect kids while offering no evidence that internet access is even really more harmful than helpful.

#bbc#onlineSafetyBill#mediaBias
Public
Mark Hughes

#Newsnight missing a key point about the "dark web": privacy and security for vulnerable groups in the face of mass surveillance, oppressive governments etc. in a world where #privacy has all but disappeared for anyone leading a "normal" life.

One day maybe they'll cover this, or the activities of data brokers, security breaches and so many other massive problems with the web since corporations have enclosed it and governments have chosen to use that to extend their power.
#OnlineSafetyBill

ExploreLive feeds
About