Markus Andrews

Your support helps us to tell the storyFrom reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.Your support makes all the difference.Read moreReaction to the Online Safety Act has been deeply divided, with many Independent readers voicing fears that the new legislation will do little to protect children while posing a significant threat to free speech and personal privacy.Several commenters warned that the act’s broad and vague definitions of “harmful content” could result in censorship of news, political debate and even parliamentary speeches. Others noted that children seeking restricted content online are often more tech-savvy than adults and can easily bypass safety measures using free VPNs or fake IDs.Many felt the legislation shifts responsibility away from parents, who they argue should be monitoring their children’s online behaviour, and gives disproportionate power to tech companies and regulators. Meanwhile, several expressed concern over the risks of identity verification, warning that forcing adults to share personal data with global porn sites or verification services could lead to mass data breaches.While a few readers defended the government’s intent to reduce online harm, the overall consensus was sceptical, with many arguing the bill is either ineffective or dangerously overreaching. “It’s just doing something to be seen to do something,” one said. “Meanwhile, it drives people to darker corners of the internet and puts millions at risk of privacy violations.”Here’s what you had to say:It’s about protecting your childrenNo matter how Farage and his media supporters twist and turn it, the Online Safety Bill is designed to protect your children, your grandchildren, the kids down the street, and their schoolmates from harm on the internet.If Farage doesn’t like this bill, as an MP, he could bring forward his own bill in Parliament. However, being the leader of a party of four, it will take hard work and many weeks in the House of Commons, both of which are against his very being. TrewentCriticism is fine – but offer a real alternativeIt is perfectly fine for Farage (or any politician) to deplore the current Online Safety Bill – it certainly does appear to be an onerous, and probably not very effective, bill.But online safety is an issue, and so it should be incumbent on Farage to propose suitable amendments or an alternative, rather than just dismissing it. Farage needs to demonstrate that he is a responsible politician with viable policies, rather than simply a populist. He hasn’t much time left to prove that. DaveAniThe Online Safety Act has sparked strong opinions about privacy and protection –what’s your take? Share your thoughts in the comments below.Sensitive dataThe intentions behind the rules are good, but there are too many problems with them. Most kids who want to look at dodgy material online will very quickly find their way around them.Meanwhile, how long before the sensitive data uploaded to pass AV checks gets leaked? Implementing an AV system is manageable for large companies, but for small artists producing material caught by these rules, the costs will be prohibitive. RemainerDoing something just to be seen to actIt’s a terrible policy – just doing something for the sake of being seen to do something. Never mind that 99 per cent of the people it’s aimed at restricting are capable of going on Google and searching for how to get around it.The inevitable outcomes will be:Children are driven into even less controlled and monitored parts of the internet; and Thousands (or millions) of adults are falling victim to data breaches that expose them for what they legally view in their private life. The Mark in remarkableParental responsibility must come firstIt has always been the job of parents/guardians to protect their children from harmful content. Those who didn’t could face consequences from the law and social services, etc.So it should be up to parents/guardians to protect their children whilst they use the internet too, although maybe there should be stronger laws, fines, etc. for those parents/guardians who fail to protect their children.This Online Safety Bill is just a con that will be used to suppress free speech and dissent, and will do nothing to protect children who are clever enough to use the internet and a free VPN. But it will take the responsibility away from parents/guardians and make them think the internet is now safe for children, which actually makes children less safe. NowWhatsHappeningTotally pointlessThe Online Safety Bill has a couple of flaws. First, it will drive anyone it thought it might stop to using the dark web, where content is completely unregulated, harmful, and offers extremes that many wouldn’t normally discover or encounter.Second, with its vague wording and hefty fines, we’ve seen that social media companies are simply stopping access to anything which could be perceived to be “harmful” content. This includes regular news, protests, and even some MP speeches in the House of Commons – because it falls under the broad umbrella of “harmful content”.Last, and probably most important, it won’t stop anyone accessing what they already did before – just by using a free VPN. So it’s totally pointless.227detiusPure madnessThere is, of course, an untold cost associated with such scrutiny at the public’s expense – probably billions of pounds! But if we’re serious about fighting cybercrime (without turning the country into a police state any further), this should start with serious measures to stop identity theft and protect personal data. It’s pure madness to expect people to share personal data with adult website companies operating across the globe. Even if some of these companies claim to follow GDPR, we have no idea what they’ll do with them at some point in the future. Plus, there’s nothing stopping cybercriminals from setting up fake adult sites just to steal UK personal data – or whatever’s left of it.Asking companies to monitor adult website logs and to verify everyone’s identity is costly, intrusive, and also morally wrong.Instead, parents should be the ones scrutinising their children’s online habits to protect them. They can easily use the technology that alerts and allows them to restrict internet access. If they need to report any suspicious activity to the police, this should be taken seriously and thoroughly investigated to prevent any false accusations. Once crimes are investigated and confirmed, the law should ensure that criminals do not get away with their actions with home restriction orders! CatherineTateIsBackPersonality politicsI wish people would understand why others, including the EFF (The Electronic Frontier Foundation), were concerned about this bill before it was brought in, instead of using personality politics to back it.Whilst nobody wants children to be exposed to any kind of pornography or self-harming content, the bill was more widespread and included the potential ability to monitor normal social interaction and to make lawful decisions based on it.The bill could have made it clear that non-child concerning content or expression would not be affected. But they didn’t, and as a consequence, have opened doors to criticism.itsonlywordsVPNsOver 450,000 signatures have been recorded on the government petitions site to repeal the bill, which has already been responded to, that this isn’t going to happen. The interesting thing is that the reasons are worded as the protection of UK users (I guess hence the name The Online Safety Act, not The Online Child Safety Act).VPN use has reportedly gone up by nearly 3,000% – 60% free vs 40% paid for – and the most amusing thing is that kids have sussed out how to get around the ID challenge by using fake driver’s licences found online.itsonlywordsSome of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More