Brits want something roughly akin to the online safety act - they want liability for online unsafety. I doubt many of them care about the requirement for platforms to register or the fees for doing so, and would still support it if that wasn't in there.

We should be trying to give people what they want in the best possible way. Otherwise, other people (with ulterior motives) will give it to them in the worst possible way.

For kid's online safety, it would be sufficient for each device to ask upon installation if it's for an adult or a kid, and send that as an HTTP header to each website. We should recommend that, so we don't get a much worse solution to the very real problem - such as UKOSA.

▲

mdp2021 3 days ago | parent [-]

> For kid's online safety, it would be sufficient for each device to ask upon installation if it's for an adult or a kid

But the voices call for "robust" systems... And some parties are trying to implement that, and from there difficulties I mentioned in the other post.

▲

inigyou 3 days ago | parent [-]

Those are the ulterior motives people I referred to. Asking on installation is robust enough because parents buy devices for their children and set them up. You could make it even more robust if you required a cellphone store employee to do it. Whatever way someone is authenticated as a cellphone store employee would surely leak, but again: robust enough. An example of something not robust is asking the child upon access to the site. Brits tolerate ID checks for cigarettes, even though parents can buy cigarettes for their children.

▲

mdp2021 3 days ago | parent [-]

> You could make it even more robust if you required a cellphone store employee

And you would accept a device that would require a third party for setup?!?!?!

That is what I meant with "either proving identity or lunatic workarounds"...

That "robust enough" is full grounds to have a population rise, given that an expectable combination of stupidity as ineptitude and stupidity as radical psychosis from the state can shift the "robust enough" to substantial dystopia. Have they (the keir starmer bunch) or have they not issued a law without the crucial details - how to do it, the whole matter is absurd without full clarity on "how to do it"?

▲

dofm 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Have they (the keir starmer bunch) or have they not issued a law without the crucial details - how to do it, the whole matter is absurd without full clarity on "how to do it"?

This (a law with a separate binding statutory instrument to implement it) is actually a pretty normal formulation of British law. It's not unique to this situation, nor is it a sign of malfeasance. It's worked pretty well before, it is far from unscrutinised (the statutory instruments pass through at least one cross-party committee) and they save us from the absurdity of massive, fully complete legislation written by lobbyists that representatives cannot meaningfully read and end up stuffed with pork barrel, special interest and unrelated legislation.

The law is voted on in the Commons on the basis that a statutory instrument will not exceed its reach. Committees make sure they don't; laws get amended if they do. (Cross-party committees work better in the UK than in the USA)

Again: we do law a bit differently here. I do not think it necessarily inferior to US law.

▲

inigyou 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes I accept that every device requires a third party for setup. That setup being namely putting the device in my hands and giving me legal ownership of the device.

	▲	mdp2021 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> That setup being namely putting the device in my hands and giving me legal ownership of the device You implied in your parent post that «requir[ing] a cellphone store employee to [set the age of an owner on the device]» would be acceptable. We refuse radically to have devices that require third parties («cellphone store employee[s]» to finalize setup.