The UK has enacted the Online Safety Act, with similar policies being introduced in other countries. There are concerns that this policy may be ineffective and overly restrictive. The approach is like installing baby gates on every door, not for safety. But to meet the preferences of a minority.
Supporters state that the policy increases online safety for children. However, there is an argument that it primarily restricts online activity rather than enhances safety. Alternative approaches exist for parents aiming to make the internet safer for children.
Firstly, parents can purchase software to prevent users from viewing ‘harmful’ content. Software packages such as Interguard are present in many workplaces and schools. Interguard monitors users’ actions—including mouse movements—and blocks specified websites or categories, such as games. Additionally, these features are often included in network provider packages. Thus making it easy for parents to control and monitor their children’s access.
https://pixabay.com/vectors/laptop-notebook-computer-black-158648/
On some sites, it won’t block until the software recognises it or users block it. Such software even flags users who type specified words into the computer. For example, if you type anything that has the word ‘adult’ into a search engine. The software installed on the system will then flag the offending user. Software will even flag a user who was looking at content that isn’t adult. For example, a user could be searching for ‘adult shoe sizes’ or ‘daily calorie intake for adults’. Despite the intentions being innocent, the software cannot differentiate between good and bad use of the words it has flagged.
In terms of the act being Orwellian, some sections of the Online Safety Act make it so. The first section is section 44. In this section, the Secretary of State can change the rules on censorship without requiring parliamentary input. In other words, if the Secretary of State wanted to ban something for any reason, then they could feel free to do so, without question.
The second section is section 179, which is even more alarming. Clause 3 of Section 179 is easy to manipulate. The clause is “at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience”. This clause is a demonstration of the true intentions of the act. This shows that the act isn’t about stopping rumours, threats of harm, etc. Clause 3 potentially could be usable to shut down anyone who states anything deemed harmful. This even includes trivial opinions like “strawberry ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream”; such statements may be harmful under the act.
Also, the rules in place don’t work. Software used by websites can bypass it by using the photo mode in Death Stranding (and other games that offer such a mode). VPNs can be used to bypass the software, so the software used isn’t foolproof. Whilst plenty of sites that the act wasn’t originally intended to protect now ask for ID before access. Many other sites/games are limiting access to their content as a result of this. With examples such as Steam (which has blocked X-rated games for those without credit cards, and could even extend to other games, like Skyrim) and Xbox Live (which requires age verification to use social features online).
The list of content deemed harmful is increasing. The list of websites include educational websites, news articles, and even censoring websites that feature medical information. I think it is silly that you may now need an ID just to do homework. Also, it can harm others. One example of a real-world scenario where it is harmful is being in a lift during a medical emergency. However, you don’t know what to do and may want to search for instructions on how to act. The fact that you can’t look up what to do on a phone because of this act blocking such sites isn’t a good thing and would cause actual harm.
This act could potentially (if not actually) start the beginning of a new internet. One in which you cannot say or do anything with ID or approval. Whilst it may start in the UK, it could be worldwide unless enough speak out against it.