Anew report is doing the rounds, warning that the UK’s new Online Safety Act is being circumvented by the cunning device of children drawing fake moustaches.
The press is treating it as a big joke, but that’s a propaganda tactic we’ll get to in a second.
The report itself – published by corporate-backed non-profit Internet Matters and titled “The Online Safety Act: Are children safer online?” – is taking it very seriously.
There’s a lot more to it than eyeliner moustaches.
The foreword insists that…
…questions remain about whether current regulations are sufficiently robust, effectively enforced, and adaptable to
an evolving digital landscape.
And suggests more laws are on the horizon [emphasis added]…
UK Government is currently consulting on what more can be done to keep children safe in a digital world
The media aren’t engaging with this messaging – yet. Instead, they are focusing on anecdotes about kids in moustaches.
Or rather “anecdote”, singular. It’s one anonymous, unsourced reference in 40 pages, and yet it’s all the media are talking about.
It is being covered in a light-hearted mood across the media landscape, always accompanied by jaunty pictures of silly children being silly.
But this joviality is an insincere tactic selling an idea. A propaganda angle sent down from the top, and it has a very predictable aim.
“Look at our silly government, and the silly rules they put in place that can be so easily circumvented by little kids! Isn’t it funny!”
You see, the point is to rebrand the authoritarian Online Safety Act as just a silly piece of paper, something they can’t even enforce. It’s not tyranny, it’s just bumbling, idiotic half-measures.
So the pincer movement goes…
“Obviously the kids need to be protected, and we tried to do it in a sort of half-hearted way because we’re just so incompetent and bumbling and well-intentioned…”
In a matter of months, the OSA goes from an appalling example of government overreach that undermines human rights to a toothless exercise in buffoonery and befuddlement.
We all share a little British chuckle. And, for now, the unspoken end of that ellipsis hangs.
And then drops.
“…so I guess in the future we’ll just have to be stricter.”
The smile fades, the face turns to stone, and they move in to close the loopholes.
As the report says [emphasis added]…
If age verification is to be used to keep children safe online, then platforms, government and the regulator need to ensure it is effective.
What does that mean?
Well, obviously, if age verification checks are being so easily fooled, they are not “robust” enough and need to be stricter. That means more laws or “closing the gaps” in existing legislation [emphasis added]
Government must ensure existing legislation is properly enforced and hold both regulators and platforms to account where it is not. It must also address gaps in the law without delay
VPNs are singled out for special attention:
the evidence suggests that while some children are using VPNs to circumvent age verification, this is a small number overall. However, we must continue to monitor uptake to ensure this does not change in the future, especially if stronger age verification is rolled out.
“If” (they clearly mean “when”) “stronger age verification is rolled out”, they will need to “monitor the uptake” of VPNs.
Practically speaking, it’s clear where this goes.
No more face scans or photos, no more shared accounts or – especially – VPNs. Instead, we must register using a government-issued ID that is then linked to every digital account you have.
It’s so dully predictable.
But still, let’s all have a nice laugh about the fake moustaches, right?
Source link
