172
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Pro@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

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

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 52 points 1 week ago

Well we all saw that coming.

The parental and elderly voting bloc is very hard to ignore, and those groups tend to be less privacy conscious (as well as pro-anything "protect the children").

The only way it's getting repealed is if enough labour voters raise a fuss. Given Reform's messaging (i.e. repeal it) and how worried Labour are over Reform's polling, that is likely the only lever that'll work. However, that's a long game - one that will take years to play out.

[-] stinerman@midwest.social 36 points 1 week ago

As an American, I'm worried that Starmer's legacy is going to be giving you PM Nigel Farage.

[-] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Yall really need a real labor party. I mean so do us yanks, but y'all do too

[-] Coldcell@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

Just as you can see happened with Mamdani, any genuine left candidate in the UK (Corbin) gets smeared and fought even by their own side. Whenever these candidates come out it shows that the 2 party system is an illusion, and all those in power seek to profit and rule.

[-] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Corbin is starting one

[-] Womble@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Starmer is no where near Blair 2.0, Blair at least had charisma, a political plan and, at least before Iraq, genuinly had mass grass roots support. Starmer has none of them, he's an apolitical middle maneger who has been pushed to the top of the party by a right wing clique in labour as a way to purge the left.

[-] OwlPaste@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

It is a very high possibility, most likely not next election but certainly one after that is a likely candidate.

[-] Coldcell@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago

Like Biden's legacy is fumbling the 2nd term so the US got Trump 2.0?

[-] FerretyFever0@fedia.io 52 points 1 week ago

"Oh no, what if our kids jack off, that would be horrible". If it's that bad, then take responsibility, try to convince them not to. Don't let the government parent for you, because you won't do it yourself. Fucking ridiculous. A similar bill was introduced in May in the US.

[-] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 32 points 1 week ago

"It's such a big issue that I'm going to do absolutely nothing as a parent to stop it from happening!"

  • These people, probably
[-] DigDoug@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

A tale as old as time. Banning media you don't like is a lot easier than parenting your children.

[-] Balerion@piefed.blahaj.zone 49 points 1 week ago

Disgusting. Violating everyone's rights and privacy "for the children" (who will just use VPNs anyway).

[-] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago

"Benefit"

This word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means

[-] hsr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

The government will enact the will of the people, whether the people like it or not.

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 35 points 1 week ago

Even forums that might seem harmless carry potential risks, such as where adults come into contact with child users.

Wait until the government finds out they're gonna have to age-restrict playing outside. What a genuine bone-dead stupid take.

[-] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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

[-] then_three_more@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week 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?

[-] RepleteLocum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago

This is most likely because of SaSu(a suicide forum). They’ve been fighting with the uk for a long time.

[-] then_three_more@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week 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.

Another "lol no" response to a petition. Didn't see that coming.

[-] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago

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

[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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?"

[-] 3dcadmin@lemmy.relayeasy.com 4 points 1 week 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....

this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2025
172 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

73795 readers
883 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS