back to article Brit regulator Ofcom put at helm as hosting platforms threatened with hefty fines for violent videos

The UK government has threatened hosting platforms with big fines for providing access to unpleasant videos and will task UK comms regulator Ofcom with looking after how that happens. The rules will come into force from 19 September in order to comply with European Union regulations. They will be in force until 31 October. If …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    When will this end?

    Can no one in England figure out their collars are being tightened?

    When your Police spend more time harassing people that have opinions

    on FakeBook instead of New arrival knife wielders you should maybe protest a little more.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: When will this end?

      All well and good I suppose but (as always) the devils in the detail.

      They haven't exactly had a great start figuring out how to enforce GDPR properly though.

      Probably another clusterf**k in the offing.

    2. sbt

      Re: When will this end?

      > New arrival knife wielders

      I have clearly underestimated the threat posed by infant chefs.

    3. RedCardinal

      Re: When will this end?

      depends on whether those "opinions" are unlawful (e.g. hate filled comments)

  2. Ochib

    So "The Boys", "Titains" and other 18 plus shows on Netflix and Amazon Prime will need to be removed then

  3. Bobby Blobby

    Panic not

    <sarcasm>This will all go on Boris' bonfire of legislation when we trip, stumble and, clatter out of the EU.</sarcasm>

    1. Will Godfrey Silver badge

      Re: Panic not

      No it won't. It'll be massive fines - He'll need the money for all his expensive ideas - which will never get implemented anyway.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Panic not

        Nobody will be paying actual fines.

  4. Pascal Monett Silver badge


    I checked out the site and, apart from blurb assuring how good they are, it is quite light on technical details.

    From what I understand, you prove your identity to AgeChecked by " a range of options" (not telling, though), and then AgeChecked vouches for your ID and age to other sites who ask them - for a fee, of course.

    The complete lack of technical details make this look like a racket to get money with minimal expense.

    1. unimaginative

      Re: AgeChecked

      It sounds like a clever way to give companies an excuse to verify your identity before using their site, so they can amass lots of personal data.

      Same as the porn block law (and will running into the same opposition and practical difficulties), GDPR etc.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: AgeChecked

      and obfusctaced likely to hide the links between those that make the laws and those that run agechecked / other "verification" providers......

      Already had an cllr (a rad fem none the less) tell me "you cant expect me to believe that you'd be happy about your wife/sister/daughter being a lap dancer" she went off in the huff when I told her quite clearly that provided they did it of their own free will I'd trust them to make their own decisions and I strongly believe in women being free to do WHATEVER job they want, not just those anti sex rad fems like her deem "appropriate and wholesome"

      She might also have stropped off after I suggested that she could start the junior anti sex league and mandate everyone does party approved "wholesome" activities like route marches or such.....

      (yes she was SNP for anyone whose wondering.....)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: AgeChecked

        Confusing post mate.

        On one hand your labelling a woman cllr a "rad fem" and then talking about how you support womans rights to do what they want.

        Just for good measure an implied political slur at the end.

        Hmmm . . . .

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: AgeChecked

          "Rad fem".

          Isn't that like someone who claims to believe in free speech. As long as they agree with said speech.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: AgeChecked

            If you say so. Not a definition that I'm familiar with although I've heard it used in offensive context before.

            Still a derogatory label directed at a woman (while claiming to supportive) seemingly based on your political persuasion.

            Can't have it both ways son.

      2. SMITCH79

        Re: AgeChecked

        "you cant expect me to believe that you'd be happy about your wife/sister/daughter being a lap dancer" she went off in the huff when I told her quite clearly that provided they did it of their own free will I'd trust them to make their own decisions and I strongly believe in women being free to do WHATEVER job they want, not just those anti sex rad fems like her deem "appropriate and wholesome"

        I don't think I would be terribly happy if I had a daughter and she went to work in the sex trade/lap dancer. I would feel like I hadn't done my job as a dad properly. Although they can make a lot of money, and I'm sure I heard they were in the process of unionising, it's still a seedy and potentially dangerous line of work in and around drunk and lecherous men.

        All the support in the world ain't gonna change that.

        Maybe she thought you were just being obtuse (or an idiot).

        1. SMITCH79

          Re: AgeChecked

          Also I'm not sure many women WANT to be lap dancers. More an order of necessity one would guess.

          Ask any girl growing up what they want to be and I think I can confidently say that not many will reply

          "I'd really like to grind up and down on a sweaty strangers groin for money while naked, that's always been the dream"

          Try talking to a few women about that (in fact say verbatim what you posted here), not many would consider her a "rad fem" but they would consider you a dickhead.

          1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

            Re: AgeChecked

            There is a very small proportion of people in the country who are doing the job they dreamed of. Sometimes, necessity is stronger than desire. Personally, I'd be much happier if my daughter became a lap-dancer than going on benefits - I'd be happier if she became a prostitute than going on benefits, to be honest. Just as long as she doesn't become a politician, I'll be happy.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: AgeChecked

            Actually I know plenty of sex positive and anti censorship feminists who share my views and get equally hacked off the moral puritanism of people like her, and their attempts to create a female led Gilead (as one put it)

            I know plenty who get abusive comments about their clothing choices etc, not from men, no but from anti sex feminists and some pretty nasty stuff at that and the vindictiveness is something else, stuff like complaining to your employer, making false allegations to your landlord, keying cars, starting rumours about that person.....

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: AgeChecked

          No she believes strongly men are ALL guilty of "oppression of women", that ALL lapdancers are trafficked and unwittingly exploited (even those who are unionised), that anyone woman doing this work "normalises misogynistic abuse of other women" - what the Americans call "slut shaming" and thats a direct quote.

          I do support womens rights, I just don't support anti sex feminists (radical and otherwise) trying to control the conversation and be the sole voice of women and drown out anticensorship and sex positive feminists from the conversation, particularly when using the levers of the state to push their puritanical views onto everyone else. My wife takes exception to their claims that "all women find being out at night a frightening experience" - she commented "I don't and you can't live your life in fear, anyone tried anything they'd be loosing an eye and or testicles in response" (yes her parents taught her well, her sister is just as assertive and has "corrected" physically a few guys who tried to get "touchy feely" without consent....they didn't try again....I'm told she has a mean right hook)

          In what way is it any different for women to tell other women what they can and can't do, can and can't wear, can and can't go vs past structures where men set rules to women?

          Its substituting a patriarchy for an authoritarian matriarchy and its frankly pathetic tbh.

          I support the rights of anyone to do any job they want, provided its of their own free will.

          Id have less of an issue with a daughter working as a lapdancer than stacking shelves al for minimum wage and on an artificially low number of contracted hours with permanent mandatory overtime - people who haven't worked retail don't see the abuses that go on - contracted for say 10 hours a week, required to do 25-30 hours overtime a week every week, go on holiday, only get paid for 10 hours, union utterly in the pockets of management and as soon as you take any time off sick your card is marked, whether you were injured at work or not, rampant health and safety violations, if you refuse your suddenly "managed out of the business" usually via shifts being constantly swapped at short notice and being hauled over the coals and written up for ANY mistake, no matter how minor.

          Don't see many folk saying their dream job is stacking shelves or sitting on a checkout the rest of their life but plenty end up stuck there with no rights...

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So hosting companies which host in the UK, or with IP addresses geotagged in the UK will simply move hosting "offshore". For example, and Delaware LLC and a dedicated server/public IP range in a USA colo.

    Problem fixed.

  6. Tromos

    confused dot ofcom

    "...confusion over exactly which sites and services will be defined as Video Sharing Platforms."

    Might I suggest they make a start by including platforms that share videos.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hopefully, they will tell Ofcom where to get off.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So OFCOM is going to start fining phone companies

    For the content they allow to reach the fragile eyes and ears of minors.

    Or the ISPs for the same.

    No, thought not.

  9. Andrew Jones 2

    Protect the Children!!

    .... because using a different DNS server to your ISP, or services like Tor are totally things that kids don't know how to do.....

    If the kids want to look at stuff the Government thinks they should not be looking at, laws and regulation won't stop them.

  10. hammarbtyp Silver badge

    59 per cent of children have already started using platforms such as Facebook and Twitter before the age of 10 – despite the minimum age requirement being 13

    Which just goes to show how quickly the target group will get around the restrictions

    (Note gmail minimum age is 13, despite most secondary schools [starting age 12], assuming that your child can be contacted via email )

    1. VinceH Silver badge


      "(Note gmail minimum age is 13, despite most secondary schools [starting age 12], assuming that your child can be contacted via email )"

      Other email providers are available.

      1. hoola Bronze badge

        Re: Optional

        The entire problem is that so far there has been no sane way of validating age/identity online. You can scream that it is the fault of the parents but equally the providers have ignored this from day one because it is too inconvenient and will hurt the bottom line. Proper age verification also puts the responsibility squarely with the provider of the server and when they get caught because people have lied or used false documents they stand to be liable. All too often now parents do not give a toss about what the kids are doing online as it keeps them quiet and out of the way. This then perpetuates as the next generation comes through, just at ever-younger ages.

        Before the Internet if you went into a shop to try and buy porn and were underage, generally you did not get it. The advent of the internet and the total absolution or responsibility by the likes of Facebook has created the mess we are in.

        It is not about "think of the children" it is just common sense. Once someone has seen a video or images depicting violence, sex or abuse you cannot easily erase them. The impact of that is there for years to come.

        1. BuckeyeB

          Re: Optional

          You can easily lock down your internet. It is the fault of the parents. If the parents are oblivious, it's still their fault. You can always choose to only have internet on your phone and not provide one(smart phone) to your child. There are ways. It's just that many parents ca n't be bothered doing their responsibility that the government legislators feel they have to do something.

  11. BuckeyeB

    Do You Know Where Your Kids Are?

    I still have to ask, where are the parents. There should be some measure of personal responsibility that should not be regulated away.

  12. RedCardinal

    This is only to protect kids of course. The Goverment is doing nothing to tackle the appalling number of hate comments on social media generally...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019