I think it speaks volumes of a strong bias in their analysis teams, as well as indictating they're even more out of touch than expected. What they've done is given direct negative consequence to millions of electors in exchange for indirect and mostly imperceivable positive consequence to concerned parents. Personally I don't see a way that ever makes electoral sense, especially given how close the last election was (in raw votes, not seats) and where opinion polls are today (Reform seemingly being considerably ahead, albeit opinion polls are _not_ reliable).
Obviously there's a lot to say about consequence, how the use-case of authentication is at odds with the desire of users to be incognito, how VPNs are considerably better UX; but their use undermines previous legislation like recording host names to help combat extremism, how encouraging users to dish out sensitive id documents online isn't the best habit, how id verifiers are not regulated and often are services hosted abroad. Obviously the biggest negative is that sketchy websites who don't care about being legal will gain considerable traffic, at the expense of websites who are trying to be legit. Children will still probably be able to access pornography and it may just be the case that the pornography is even "worse", yielding the most counter-intuitive outcome.
I'm particularly alarmed that many websites are responding by blanket age-verifying NSFW content. So now reddit resources on mental health, drugs, suicide, domestic abuse, etc are locked behind age verification.
People no longer start their own forum, but create a Facebook group etc.
E.g.:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/aug/15/digital-g...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/19/online-safety-ac...
It's how the (previous) government was able to look like it was doing something about the mental health crisis caused by social media, even though this bill won't fix that at all.
IMHO the argument for "doing something" is one of those things that people are noisy about but ultimately care little about at the ballot box. The risk is that the typically politically apathetic are driven to the ballot box as a consequence of disrupting their habit in order to protest. Most governments do very little that actually directly interfere with people and their habits, COVID was a very rare event and Boris Johnson fell in no small part due to circumventing the rules his own government imposed on the populace. There's huge electoral risk in giving so many people consequence.
Given the numbers at play, I just don't see how you can square the huge internet traffic for pron and the intrusion into their "workflows" against some presumed other number of electors that will suddenly vote for you because you allowed this bill to take effect. Irrespective of the ethics of the subject it just doesn't feel like good electoral statecraft in a democracy. This is particularly surprising given that most UK political parties generally veer away from doing things that might lose them any significant amount of votes.
It's hard to know how it'll work in practice without trying it.
until they can't because they're also made illegal
don't forget this is also the same government that has effectively tried to ban e2e encryption by forcing companies to install backdoors into their algorithms under gag orders
it is no longer (if it ever was) about the children
For a year that has seen student protests, protests for Palestine, an inflation crisis worsening and more..an act condemning free speech under the guise of protecting children is a horror.
The UK Online Safety Act proposes that to access any information on the internet deemed for adults, an individual must prove their age as being 18+. How is this done? Through verification using YOUR ID. Surely it's a good thing? Ensuring the younger generation does not have access to harmful media and conversation IS a good move.
But this act was NEVER to protect the children. The role of protecting children from harmful content are the adults and people around them and features already EXIST for such a thing, that need only be accessed and monitored by responsible adults in children's lives. It is a guise to gain more control of your activity and data, by either restricting what you see to what is deemed morally appropriate or linking what you view, interact with and post about to your personal ID. It is an invasion of privacy, and an absolutely tragic spiral into censorship.
I find it startling that this is happening and by making the front of this Act to protect children from online pornography is a fantastic way to undermine anyone who would oppose it.
It will lead to consequences that limit thought, speech and freedom of creation. So many video games, books, content and websites will be restricted OR Linked directly back to a personal ID. All this at the same time could only mean a few things, and the government is not in your favour in it.
I believe technology is a burden to humanity in many ways, and we should seek to create a better world with genuine connections and systems that make it safe so we can be present, instead of an online space to supplement this. BUT the answer isn't ruining the internet. We use it as a platform to communicate and supplement where our real life society has failed...a support system, connective space and a communicative one. I don't even have social medias on my phone anymore due to these beliefs (all on my laptop I use about once a week like this post) but I acknowledge it's benefits. This act will deeply maul that.
And it'll impact..
Safe online spaces for discussing issues and recieving support like sexual assault (under the act is not accessible to under 18 year olds due to sexual nature and is currently in accessible in some cases like on the app Reddit) posting and organising protests about the political climate and war (which under the act are classified as violence, and have already censored videos about protests - which I have physically seen myself), out speaking against issues relevant to you and holding an opinion against the favour of the government, and much more..is arguably under threat, at many levels. All of it is determined by those in power. I can't comprehend the negative consequences of this all. Because from the surface it looks a great move.
The answer to the horrific issues we are facing, that coencide with the internet and being absorbed in technology...like disconnection, isolation and lack of meaning..isn't in censoring this technology. It is in creating a better environment and society to exist in, so that people will actually attempt to do so. This act will NOT do that. It will remove what freedom people have. Once again, removing a coping mechanism instead of addressing why it exists.
If you have a moment, sign. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903
