russ-e.bsky.social

I'm not convinced Samir Shah and co are up to the task.

Yes, I did wonder about that.

Oh dear. Seems like the newspaper journo failed to grasp the crucial difference between 'block' and 'allows users to block'.

Luv the "I'll move when I want to."

I'm kinda hoping Liz 'vacuum-packed' Kendall will commit political suicide by saying something completely stupid in the announcement on platform categorisation.

What a circus!

Given the recent judgement in the Hamit Coskun case, is it not appropriate for 'religion' to be removed from the list of protected characteristics in non crime hate incidents?

We seem to have a divided judiciary. The judge in June found Hamit Coskun guilty of the 'religiously aggravated' offence (which sounds to me like we do still have blaspemy law), and today's judge who overturned the conviction. In both instances, the rationale is not very clear.

So naughty (non-CSAM) pictures sent privately between 2 users of an SM platform, provided there is no intention on the part of the sender to cause harm or distress, would not be actionable?

Would it be fair to say that the only 'private messaging' that is actionable would be terrorist content and CSAM?

Excellent.

I had understood that OSA's 'e-mail' was a sort of synonym for private messages. Hence my confusion as to how the new restrictions could apply. Or maybe we are in the now familiar territory of Ofcom saying things that have no basis in what the law actually says.

Is 'e-mail' defined?

The Act's focus is on public messaging. Private messaging is out of scope. I don't see how these new offences can be included in the OSA.

One of my worries is that the DigID Bill will become like the OSA; a 300-page monster, the result of weak/ignorant Ministers losing control and allowing numerous pressure groups and nutters (beware the Home Office!) to propose all sorts of draconian requirements and labyrinthine complexity.

The Daily Mail doesn't need X to be 'fevered'.

I'm sure Sir Keir will make everything clear and assuage my concerns.

I would want to know how a user can check what links are present on the ID card, how to access those links, how to correct any information contained in those links, and how to control which aspects of information are presented for a particular 'ID' interchange.

These are essential user protections.

As is often the case with anything associated with Laura Kuenssberg, there is zero journalism here. Nowhere is there any attempt to explain what Ed Davey is accusing X of is actually legal or illegal.

It's useful to check others' understandings and perceptions. Also, it's useful because the MSM seems incapable of addressing the basics of the charges, i.e. who has been been 'distressed' or 'suffered anxiety', and who the 'recipient' is.

Baroness Kidron, noting that Ofcom's research indicates only one in 10 VPN users are children, asks the Government to provide a written response on how many services have been refered by Ofcom to ICO for failing to uphold user privacy rights when performing age checks.

The Government persists in its lie that the circumvention or bypassing of age verification requirements by use of a VPN is illegal under the OSA.

Free speech usually proceeds with good intentions. This is a political perversion.

Is 1435mm too difficult to say?

I don't view it that way.

Merlin in the background?

YouTube video by Sooz Kempner A word from Nadine Dorries, Minister for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxlC...

Another chapter of delusion and failure from the Australian Government.

Go easy on the treats with these three, Tim. They're not lacking in calories.

Glorious.