Internet Porn Site Regulation

(02-04-2018 13:22 )Chrisst Wrote:  I see that S66 censor their pictures on their Instagram. Fernanda herself remarked on BGF a few weeks ago that a film of her on the beach in Thailand was taken down and these days her front is rarely shown.

They all have to as Instagram does not allow nipples to be shown.

Two established AV platforms are joining up - presumably to better compete against the likes of Mindgeek in the new market: http://www.businesscloud.co.uk/news/onli...artnership
https://www.telemediaonline.co.uk/ageche...ification/

----

Meanwhile that Hunt minister stepped up the rhetoric against social media last Sunday. He reckons the legislation will be coming for social media next (quoted in case it paywalls):

The FT's James Blitz Wrote:Jeremy Hunt, health secretary, has warned leading social media companies that the government will impose legislation if they fail to take action to protect children and young people online.

In a letter to leading internet groups — including Facebook, Apple and Google — Mr Hunt said the UK government would consider introducing laws to control access to online platforms because there had been “an extremely limited response” to concerns he had raised.

Mr Hunt said the companies had until the end of April to outline action on cutting harmful exposure to the internet for young people. He said the three issues the internet companies needed to address were age verification to prevent underage exposure to websites, screen-time limits, and action to reduce cyber-bullying and abuse.

He said the government could introduce legislation to tackle the issue by May when it published its response to the Internet Safety Strategy consultation.

Six months ago, Mr Hunt met the companies, asking them to work with the government to help improve the mental health and wellbeing of young people.

But writing in the Sunday Times newspaper, the health secretary said: “There have been a lot of warm words — and a few welcome moves to improve children’s online protection — but the overall response to my challenge has been extremely limited, leaving me to conclude that a voluntary, joint approach has not been sufficient.”

He added: “Today, therefore, I’ve written to the leading social media companies to inform them that the culture secretary and I will now be working to explore what other avenues are open to use to pursue the reforms we need … And we will not rule out legislation where it is needed.”

Mr Hunt has also asked Sally Davies, the chief medical officer, to produce a review on the impact of technology and young people’s mental health.

In his letter to the internet groups, Mr Hunt said: “I am concerned that your companies seem content with a situation where thousands of users breach your own terms and conditions on the minimum user age.

“I fear that you are collectively turning a blind eye to a whole generation of children being exposed to the harmful emotional side effects of social media prematurely.

“This is both morally wrong and deeply unfair to parents who are faced with the invidious choice of allowing children to use platforms they are too young to access, or excluding them from social interaction that often the majority of their peers are engaging in.”

He added: “It is unacceptable and irresponsible for you to put parents in this position.”

The health secretary has been pushing for action from social media companies for nearly two years.

“There is a lot of evidence that the technology industry, if they put their mind to it, can do really smart things,” he said in 2016. “For example, I ask myself the simple question as to why you can’t prevent the texting of sexually explicit images by people under the age of 18, if that’s a lock that parents choose to put on a mobile phone contract.

“There is technology that can identify sexually explicit pictures and prevent [them] being transmitted.”

(https://www.ft.com/content/ac94a1ba-4614...5ddcca99b3 )

If they are so problematical why didn't you curtail them this time round then Jeremy? Oh wait yeah, that'd be because it'd be a political shitstorm. That ain't gonna change any time soon is it? Why do you think they know they don't have to engage you properly given they haven't in the last six months?

___

This blog gives a nice example of the BBFC's fear assuaging offensive in the now concluded consultation. It will be interesting to see if the promised education improvements materialise: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyprojec...ood-start/

While this straightforward and basically comprehensive overview informs that all licence fees for use of AV gateways have been blocked and Mindgeek's t&c's paragraph on the collection of the user's browser data has been removed: http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2018/04/everyth...in-the-uk/

However, as this right to reply article from AgeID confirms on the CBR site (the site had previously published an article critical of AgeID), this only refers to UK sites, porn sites based abroad will still have to pay Mindgeek if they wish to use AgeID, with rates being based on their web traffic: https://www.cbronline.com/opinion/uk-smu...rification

Finally, here's the first published responses to the consultation:
Backlash's to-the-point "even biting" (geopinch.co.uk) assessment:
https://www.backlash.org.uk/backlash-res...sultation/
The ORG's: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/assets/f...sponse.pdf
And one from Pandora Blake and Myles Jackman: http://pandorablake.com/static/cms-uploa...-Blake.pdf

The latest crackpot idea from BBFC, buy a porn pass along with your packet of fags and scratchcards! Only a tenner
Better than having your card details hacked I guess but even so ...

https://thenextweb.com/uk/2018/05/13/uk-...ge-online/


(originally from The Telegraph, but their site is paywalled, hence the alternative link above)

And someone under the age of eighteen can chuck someone (obviously unscrupulous) over the age of eighteen a score to acquire a porn pass.

^ And the porn tax is born. I presume part/all these tenners are going to the government? Or are firms tendering for the contract (still money to the government). No indication of cost against return in that piece. Are they going to tell us how much each scratchcard costs to put in place?

Who'd have thought you will now have to pay one way or another (for a decent VPN) if you don't like the idea of handing over your details online. No wonder this is the Economy bill.

And we're supposed to advocate democracy.
So how long will this pass be valid for? Will it have an expiry date so they can keep milking the shit out of us?
If they are truly doing this to protect children then why not make them free? A complete load of bollocks to make a few extra £ and will achieve bugger all else besides.

(14-05-2018 06:48 )ShandyHand Wrote:  I presume part/all these tenners are going to the government? Or are firms tendering for the contract (still money to the government).

You presume wrong. The existing proposal is for cards to be issued by private operators. No money would go to the government and no money would go to the BBFC. But I suppose the cards could be made VATable, in which case the government would be able to pocket the VAT, although I don't think the BBFC have got to that stage of thinking yet.

(14-05-2018 06:48 )ShandyHand Wrote:  Are they going to tell us how much each scratchcard costs to put in place?

It's not the cost of providing the cards that really matters. What does matter is how much private operators would need to make in order to make it worthwhile for them to issue the cards and how much retailers would need to make in order to make it worthwhile for them to sell the cards. I suspect the price of a tenner may be guesswork at this stage.

^ Will you STOP with the petty point scoring no-one gives a ticker's cuss (sorry only you and your sad cronies); just present the info you have found. Some sources would be nice. You know so everyone can have a look. I congratulate you in being bothered to dig into this nonsense though. It's something I'm rapidly losing the will to live doing.

What matters is that it shouldn't be an opportunity for anyone to profit off of in the first place. This is not an area for market forces. Why is it tptb have persuaded the AV providers to drop their charges to website providers but your philanthropic government and the BBFC thinks it's okay to make adults pay to prove their freakin age!

I hope the companies you have in mind spend a small fortune on this and it flops like the proverbial stone. Any punter that signs up to any part of this needs their head examining.

And I'm glad you have faith in a VAT waver btw.

The government's door hasn't even closed and rebels are lining up to open new doors around it: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/14...ge_checks/

This could end up being the most fruitless game of whack-a-mole ever.

Elsewhere, here's a nice handy summary of the best of BBFC consultation responses from copies gathered by the Register: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/08...sultation/

(14-05-2018 17:48 )ShandyHand Wrote:  ^ Will you STOP with the petty point scoring no-one gives a ticker's cuss (sorry only you and your sad cronies); just present the info you have found.

Spot on. I stopped reading his post as soon as I read this...

(14-05-2018 12:28 )BarrieBF Wrote:  You presume wrong.