Images

[#1]

---

@grumble wrote:

The online safety act was passed into legilation in 2023 (under the Tory guvmint of the time. The legislation permitted a 2 year 'getting up to speed' period.

---

I don't care which administration implemented it, or what the 'grace period' was -it's implementation on here is deeply flawed.

[#2]

---

@Townman wrote:

---

---

I agree that is that it is supposed to be about, but in fact it is far more reaching.  Good that we agree on some points!

---

Interesting statement. Do you mean it is intended as a way of closing the forum down?

[#3]

@Protech - you really trust the output of AI and co-pilot?

@outcast 

This space has indeed changed markedly over the years and little of it is a real improvement.  Sad loss of CP3 (the three Chris P's) who delivered prompt and in depth responses.  Forum staff where chosen because they were the best of the best and SMEs in many matters.

I fear that honest answers foreshortened their tenancy here.

There have been hints that though there have been no issues here, there has elsewhere and that a common approach has been adopted.  I suggest that an element of the clunky implementation is that it is a function of the forum technology.  When the change you referred to was implemented it was claimed that the vendor was "Best in class" - I suggest that the intervening history shows that the person making that statement (Lee ?) did not know what they were talking about.  That was a pivotal period, that individual closing the ticketing system and eventually the chat service.

[#4]

---

@jab1 wrote:

---

@Townman wrote:

---

---

I agree that is that it is supposed to be about, but in fact it is far more reaching.  Good that we agree on some points!

---

Interesting statement. Do you mean it is intended as a way of closing the forum down?

---

No, the way the act is being used in various places is far more reaching than the suggested child safety considerations.  See The Online Safety Act Has Nothing to Do With Child Safety and Everything to Do With Censorship | Nov...

[#5]

@Townman 

The co-pilot summary is accurate afaik.

If you disagree you can verify it for yourself here

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137/publications 

My point being that the image pre verfication on this forum is a BT/Plusnet policy - not a legal requirement as some have implied! 

@outcast @jab1 

If i was being cynical I would say that this is just another nail in the coffin for this forum - does a forum like this have future relevance to a "no-frills" provider such as Plusnet ?

[#6]

---

@Townman wrote:

@Protech - you really trust the output of AI and co-pilot?

@Townman  - I could turn that question around.

From studying the subject for the past month, trying to figure out which websites my router needs to automatically re-route my home traffic to 'appear' to be geolocated in the UK or elsewhere (via VPN), and understand what rules apply on what websites, the AI output that @Protech posted is consistent with my prior understanding of the rules,  which is why I posted earlier that the online safety act doesn't really apply to niche sites such as this.

.

[#7]

---

@Townman wrote:

---

@jab1 wrote:

---

@Townman wrote:

---

---

I agree that is that it is supposed to be about, but in fact it is far more reaching.  Good that we agree on some points!

---

Interesting statement. Do you mean it is intended as a way of closing the forum down?

---

No, the way the act is being used in various places is far more reaching than the suggested child safety considerations.  See The Online Safety Act Has Nothing to Do With Child Safety and Everything to Do With Censorship | Nov...

---

Thanks for that very useful and informative link - quite a bit of which I have already come across after reading other similar  information, after discussions on other sites.

[#8]

---

@Protech wrote:

If i was being cynical I would say that this is just another nail in the coffin for this forum - does a forum like this have future relevance to a "no-frills" provider such as Plusnet ?

---

@Protech 

My prediction from about 2022, is that Plusnet and this forum will implode around the time when the PSTN landlines are retired.

Not long to go now !  🙄

.

[#9]

I was taking exception to politically directed thoughts, and redirecting them? Whilst indicating that commercial concerns had a timeline in which to comply.

Perhaps some left it right up to the wire and therefore had to rush through 'last minute' changes because they hadn't looked at stuff they were going to have to do.

[#10]

---

@Townman wrote:

Sad loss of CP3 (the three Chris P's) who delivered prompt and in depth responses.  Forum staff where chosen because they were the best of the best and SMEs in many matters.

I fear that honest answers foreshortened their tenancy here.

In those days of Pettitt, Parr, and Purvey,  we go so many things fixed between us, at all hours of the day and night.

Plusnet management squandered that talent pool, and now they are needlessly ruining this support forum.

Look at the state of the support staff now, that is when they can be bothered to appear on the forum !,

have ANY of them got a degree in networking or relevant discipline ?

.

[#11]

---

@outcast wrote:

... I have images still waiting for approval from nearly a week ago !.

I notice that somebody has just gone through my posting history, and 'approved' all the images that have been invisible for the past week.

Well It's too late now, the moment that those posts were relevant has passed, nobody is going to go back to read those posts, the opportunity for anything I said to be relevant has been lost, and therefore I've completely wasted my time trying to help.

.

[#12]

Talking to the teenage son of a neighbour apparently there are plenty of questionable sites accessible with neither age verification nor using a VPN. His information was obtained from his school mates.  In my professional experiences the chances of accidentally visiting one of these sites is highly unlikely, unless you go looking for them. So the only scenario of the online safety act working seems to be images posted on this forum. Another well thought out piece of legislation…..

[#13]

@Champnet See the link in  post #37 - this extremely draconian legislation has little, if anything to do with 'protecting the children' - which was a conclusion I reached some time ago.

Unless 'the business' gets its act together, expect this forum to die by Christmas.

[#14]

i know this post will probably get deleted for being 'offensive', but as I think I have said above that the 'announcement' which prompted the topic was, to put it politely, a load of bull, forced on to @James_B  to post, by the 'higher-ups'.

Are they looking to amend it to tell the truth, or are we expected to swallow it?

[#15]

@jab1 

I'm not suggesting that the implementation is flawless. It could be, it may not be. Me (like you?) are not party to that. It wouldn't be the first and only time. I'm not suggesting that the law may be flawed. It could be. It wouldn't be the first and only time.

However, the legislation is on the statute book and therefore cannot be ignored. There will be risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses on how to approach it.

The only way of getting the law removed would be by lobbying MPs. (I think you mentioned 'removing the law', somewhere).

I don't think I'm sniping at you.