zlacker

>>JoshTr+(OP)
Without passing judgment on the act, this is incredibly misleading. I found the source of the original quotes[0], and they are taken quite out of context.

From the article:

>First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but was about regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse”, a phrase that rather gives away the political thinking behind the act.

From the source (emphasis mine):

> On 18 March 2024, the Secretary of State was provided with a Submission which made it clear that Category 1 duties were not primarily aimed at pornographic content or the protection of children _(which were dealt with by other parts of the Act)_. Rather, the aim of Category 1 was to capture services that have a significant influence over public discourse. The submission offered, as a possible option, requesting information from Ofcom as to _how content recommender systems function on different types of service_.

The quote leaves out "which were dealt with by other parts of the Act" and the fact that the subject was specifically "Category 1 duties" not the Act in its entirety. It also doesn't mention that the subject was on content recommender systems.

_Again_ this is not a judgment on the Act itself, but providing the full context, which does change the message.

0: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v_Secret...

>>dustin+02
Doesn't this just mean that it is about "protecting children" and influence over public discourse? The fact remains that the Category 1 rules impose onerous duties on websites that have a significant influence over public discourse, with the effect that many of them will see their influence significantly reduced and may have to fold altogether if they cannot afford to comply.

In fact it is pretty obvious from the OSA itself that the definition of Category 1 is not primarily about capturing porn sites.

>>Noboru+b4
I think the original paraphrase is actually pretty reasonable even with the full context - what is Section 1 doing in the Act if it is primarily aimed at protecting children? There is a lot more public discourse going on than there are unsafe children. If the act deals with both it is, practically, an act aimed primarily at influencing the public discourse with some child-related rules tacked on. Something like 80% of a persons life on the internet is engaging with public discourse and 20% is as a child.

>>roenxi+vf
That just makes it even worse, they sell this as a child protection act but as you say most of what it affects has nothing to do with child safety.