Applies to user-to-user services that are "medium" or "high" risk with at least one relevant "harm" or with more than 700,000 monthly users or file-storage/sharing sites or identify a high risk of grooming.
First off, those definitions are probably never going to be made clear so that the rules can be implemented at whim on targets those in charge dislike for whatever reasons.
Second, "easy" loophole would be to just cap how many users you can have under 700k. This will of course likely change when sites attempt to do this because the rule is that dumb people will try the loophole.
Detect or support the detection of content and files for illegal content to block it (including piracy);
They really think pirated software has some label on it that says "pirated", don't they? More and more it becomes clear just how technologically illiterate the ones pushing this are.
Detect or support the detection of content deemed "harmful to children";
Yet another definitions which will change "as needed" because something will happen those in charge will not want spreading. This will of course include certain political leanings, which I'm sure everyone here expects to see happen.
Sanction users who generate, upload or share "illegal" content or content that is "harmful".
This is going to be a mess regardless of anything else. Non-illegal content "deemed harmful" will be affected by this when it's convenient.
Set and record performance targets for content moderation.
Quotas are cancer.
Ban users who share, generate or upload CSEA and those who receive CSAM.
"Receive"? Really? That's not only impossible to avoid if something is suitably motivated enough but also easily opens themselves up to trolls sending them those very materials and making them liable under their own rules. Which they will never be held, naturally. This literally arms trolls.
if someone is assessed to be under the age required. it also deals with errors with current age verification
What about the errors where it flat out gets the age wrong and then bans someone forever? So far all the points about appeals don't seem to actually address this part of the problem these decisions are creating.
(such as those who used video game characters and MP's forged ID to be verified as an adult).
lol, that part about MP's forged IDs seems a little too specific.
All user-to-user services with a "high" risk of "grooming" or has at least a "medium" risk of grooming and have 7 million or more monthly UK users must either implement age verification or make itself child safe.
Is that 7 million unique users or could someone just write a script and DDOS a site into compliance? Also when is Reddit getting added to those lists?
It is also likely television in the UK will also have the watershed abolished so it aligns with online services.
"For your own safety", remember.
Allow a dedicated communication channel to allow law enforcement to contact the service during a crisis.
This, as with a lot of other requirements, are going to increase costs of sites which is why some have already simply decided to region-block the UK because the sites can't afford to handle this growing shitshow.
First off, those definitions are probably never going to be made clear so that the rules can be implemented at whim on targets those in charge dislike for whatever reasons.
Second, "easy" loophole would be to just cap how many users you can have under 700k. This will of course likely change when sites attempt to do this because the rule is that dumb people will try the loophole.
They really think pirated software has some label on it that says "pirated", don't they? More and more it becomes clear just how technologically illiterate the ones pushing this are.
Yet another definitions which will change "as needed" because something will happen those in charge will not want spreading. This will of course include certain political leanings, which I'm sure everyone here expects to see happen.
This is going to be a mess regardless of anything else. Non-illegal content "deemed harmful" will be affected by this when it's convenient.
Quotas are cancer.
"Receive"? Really? That's not only impossible to avoid if something is suitably motivated enough but also easily opens themselves up to trolls sending them those very materials and making them liable under their own rules. Which they will never be held, naturally. This literally arms trolls.
What about the errors where it flat out gets the age wrong and then bans someone forever? So far all the points about appeals don't seem to actually address this part of the problem these decisions are creating.
lol, that part about MP's forged IDs seems a little too specific.
Is that 7 million unique users or could someone just write a script and DDOS a site into compliance? Also when is Reddit getting added to those lists?
"For your own safety", remember.
This, as with a lot of other requirements, are going to increase costs of sites which is why some have already simply decided to region-block the UK because the sites can't afford to handle this growing shitshow.