One more law to break as a criminal

Can I ask where you got this info from? The article says the bill is 300 pages long. I'm never getting through all that.

Edit: the article also claims age verification for porn sites is still in there?

re your 2nd point, that's most certainly not been scrapped. The language has changed to basically say, they're aware thetech doesn't currently exist to do this but as soon as it does, it must be done. It's a temporary reprieve at best.

We recently passed a law that enables the UK to indefinitely detain adult and children refugees and asylum seekers. I'm sure they'll be building camps next.

This government has no morals.

England prevails.

It is a consistent embarrassment and detriment to the world.

They are using the "good intentions" as cover for their ever expanding surveillance state. It is absolutely not the intention of this bill to provide "safety" for the citizens. It's to make sure that the citizens don't get too uppity and threaten their masters.

The original intent - to stop kids accessing harmful content on big tech media sites was the sole original intent. That's now morphed into the legislative tool for mass surveillance that's just been passed. That original intent wasn't a Tory idea as such, but two researchers. The addition of more and more draconian elements most definitely was from the Tories. Including the red Tory currently leading the Labour party.

I feel since she took over, Signal has been on a steady downward trajectory. Increasing the barriers to use, more centralization instead of federation, and the stupid fucking Stories feature.

Ironic if most UK users just start using VPNs to access content no longer available in UK.

Probably means she’s believing what they told her!

As for the Tories I think this is the ideal extension to their snoopers charter.

They threatened to leave and the UK Gov called these companies bluff. They won't leave.

Kids using the ISP in their homes, using wifi in a public place etc.

Kinda left out the important bits, quoted below

Platforms will also need to show they are committed to removing illegal content including:

child sexual abuse
controlling or coercive behaviour
extreme sexual violence
illegal immigration and people smuggling
promoting or facilitating suicide
promoting self-harm
animal cruelty
selling illegal drugs or weapons
terrorism

New offences have also been included in the bill, including cyber-flashing and the sharing of "deepfake" pornography.

And the bill includes measures to make it easier for bereaved parents to obtain information about their children from tech firms.

Online safety campaigner Ian Russell has told the BBC the test of the bill will be whether it prevents the kind of images his daughter Molly saw before she took her own life after viewing suicide and self-harm content online on sites such as Instagram and Pinterest.

Digital rights campaigners the Open Rights Group said the bill posed "a huge threat to freedom of expression with tech companies expected to decide what is and isn't legal, and then censor content before it's even been published".

Lawyer Graham Smith, author of a book on internet law, said the bill had well-meaning aims, but in the end it contained much that was problematic.

"If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, this is a motorway," he told the BBC.

He said it was "a deeply misconceived piece of legislation", and the threat it posed to legitimate speech was likely to be "exposed in the courts".

And popular messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal have threatened to refuse to comply with powers in the bill that would force them to examine the contents of encrypted messages for child abuse material.

Wikipedia has also said it can't comply with some of the requirements of the bill.

After royal assent the baton will pass to the communications regulator, Ofcom, who will be largely responsible for enforcing the bill.

It will draw up codes of conduct that will provide guidance on how to comply with the new rules.

Those who fail can face large fines of up to £18m, or in some cases executives could face imprisonment.