The UK has now enacted the Online Safety Act, with similar policies emerging globally. I believe this policy is ineffective and overly controlling. In my view, it’s like putting a baby gate on every door, not for safety, but simply to satisfy a few.
Supporters argue this policy makes the internet safer for kids, but I disagree. In my opinion, it’s more about restricting what people can do online than ensuring online safety. If parents want to make the internet safer for children, there are better approaches.
Firstly, there is software that parents can buy to prevent users from viewing ‘harmful’ content. In fact, many workplaces/schools have this software available, such as Interguard. Such software also monitors every user’s actions, even down to a user moving the mouse. When it comes to internet usage, the software will block specified websites and any websites within given categories, such as games. Parents can easily buy software that blocks and monitors content they don’t want their children to find. In fact, most network providers even offer them in their packages.
https://pixabay.com/vectors/laptop-notebook-computer-black-158648/
On some sites, it won’t block until the software knows what it is, or until 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.
With regard to 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 can be used to shut down anyone who states anything that anyone deems harmful in any way. 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 who can access 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. This list includes educational websites, news articles (which can be blocked or removed), and goes as far as to censor 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 when you are in a lift when a medical emergency occurs. 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.