Source.

Long Response

I would like to thank all those who signed the petition. It is right that the regulatory regime for in scope online services takes a proportionate approach, balancing the protection of users from online harm with the ability for low-risk services to operate effectively and provide benefits to users.

The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.

Proportionality is a core principle of the Act and is in-built into its duties. As regulator for the online safety regime, Ofcom must consider the size and risk level of different types and kinds of services when recommending steps providers can take to comply with requirements. Duties in the Communications Act 2003 require Ofcom to act with proportionality and target action only where it is needed.

Some duties apply to all user-to-user and search services in scope of the Act. This includes risk assessments, including determining if children are likely to access the service and, if so, assessing the risks of harm to children. While many services carry low risks of harm, the risk assessment duties are key to ensuring that risky services of all sizes do not slip through the net of regulation. For example, the Government is very concerned about small platforms that host harmful content, such as forums dedicated to encouraging suicide or self-harm. Exempting small services from the Act would mean that services like these forums would not be subject to the Act’s enforcement powers. Even forums that might seem harmless carry potential risks, such as where adults come into contact with child users.

Once providers have carried out their duties to conduct risk assessments, they must protect the users of their service from the identified risks of harm. Ofcom’s illegal content Codes of Practice set out recommended measures to help providers comply with these obligations, measures that are tailored in relation to both size and risk. If a provider’s risk assessment accurately determines that the risks faced by users are low across all harms, Ofcom’s Codes specify that they only need some basic measures, including:

  • easy-to-find, understandable terms and conditions;
  • a complaints tool that allows users to report illegal material when they see it, backed up by a process to deal with those complaints;
  • the ability to review content and take it down if it is illegal (or breaches their terms of service);
  • a specific individual responsible for compliance, who Ofcom can contact if needed.

Where a children’s access assessment indicates a platform is likely to be accessed by children, a subsequent risk assessment must be conducted to identify measures for mitigating risks. Like the Codes of Practice on illegal content, Ofcom’s recently issued child safety Codes also tailor recommendations based on risk level. For example, highly effective age assurance is recommended for services likely accessed by children that do not already prohibit and remove harmful content such as pornography and suicide promotion. Providers of services likely to be accessed by UK children were required to complete their assessment, which Ofcom may request, by 24 July.

On 8 July, Ofcom’s CEO wrote to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology noting Ofcom’s responsibility for regulating a wide range of highly diverse services, including those run by businesses, but also charities, community and voluntary groups, individuals, and many services that have not been regulated before.

The letter notes that the Act’s aim is not to penalise small, low-risk services trying to comply in good faith. Ofcom – and the Government – recognise that many small services are dynamic small businesses supporting innovation and offer significant value to their communities. Ofcom will take a sensible approach to enforcement with smaller services that present low risk to UK users, only taking action where it is proportionate and appropriate, and will focus on cases where the risk and impact of harm is highest.

Ofcom has developed an extensive programme of work designed to support a smoother journey to compliance, particularly for smaller firms. This has been underpinned by interviews, workshops and research with a diverse range of online services to ensure the tools meet the needs of different types of services. Ofcom’s letter notes its ‘guide for services’ guidance and tools hub, and its participation in events run by other organisations and networks including those for people running small services, as well as its commitment to review and improve materials and tools to help support services to create a safer life online.

The Government will continue to work with Ofcom towards the full implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023, including monitoring proportionate implementation.

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

  • abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 hours ago

    The TL;DR of it is “we’re not repealing it, get fucked.”

    The technology minister said on Sky News that if you was to repeal the act, you’re on the side of Jimmy Savile.

    That’s where we are in all this, support this or you’re a nonce.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    5 hours ago

    When the regime ignores petitions by the public for the redress pf grievances, you petition harder.

    Demonstrations, Public Disobedience, Mischief, Sabotage, Terrorism.

    Censorship always expands and encroaches on things important to the public. Obscenity and indecency protections eventually turn into queer erasure. Security concerns are always followed by carve-outs of civil rights.

    Hit hard early.

  • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Yeah the Brits needs to re-install their governement and flush out the royals, the lords and the other elite turds

    • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Honestly, half the time the hereditary peers have been the only protection against our government passing totally shit legislation, as the rest of the upper house is packed with useless political appointees. Not to say I wouldn’t replace the upper house with some sort of body of citizens similar to Jury Duty or somesuch to filter out the crazy.

    • cmhe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      I’m not sure the royals caused this. I guess the main issue is that some democracies become too entrenched, and groups of elites take over the role of nobility, term limits doesn’t help, since to be in a position to become someone, you have to join those that already rule. Capitalism also doesn’t help and even accelerates this process. Abolishing FPTP and instituting ranked choice would be the first step I think on improving democracies, by breaking up these elite groups.

  • RedFrank24@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    If only they could have that response when the TERFs come knocking. When normal people want something good they’re like “lol no get fucked losers” but when JK Rowling comes along they’re like “Of course mistress anything you want do you want a viewing box at the gas chambers?”

    • andros_rex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      You’d think if they are going to being censoring things, they’d start with the full on Holocaust denial that Rowling has normalized.

    • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      they’ll need so many more cameras with built in AI face and gait recognition, and footage uploading to china. Otherwise how will they automatically fine any adult that goes within 5 meters of a children without written approval of both parents signed by a notary

  • 3dcadmin@lemmy.relayeasy.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Govt easily has enough majority to ignore this, I said this when everyone was going it is time for Labour to have a go at the GE. Same govt is making it OK for 16 and 17yr old to vote but they have to be age checked on the tinternet…

  • then_three_more@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    14 hours ago

    For example, the Government is very concerned about small platforms that host harmful content, such as forums dedicated to encouraging suicide or self-harm.

    So they’ve identified a problem with this type of content, and the answer is to put it behind an age wall. So is it a-ok for anyone over 18 to be encouraged to self harm or commit suicide according to the government?

      • then_three_more@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        10 hours ago

        What I don’t get is why it’s ok to view that at 18 but not at 17 years and 364 days. Surely just ban the site for everyone.

        • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          This was never about age. It’s about having to identify yourself to use the internet.

    • Armand1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Not if they end up banning VPNs, which is already something being discussed. If that happens, I might genuinely leave the country.

      • Allero@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Russian here; good fucking luck banning VPNs

        First, they evolve very rapidly and are able to evade even the most sensitive detection methods Russia and China are using

        Second, people in power never want to apply the same restrictions to themselves, so, ironically, they themselves are often VPN users and as such they undermine themselves