ダイハツ！ムーヴコンテ
École des Bro-ArtsThe complaint form Ofcom says you should use to report websites for violations of the #OnlineSafetyAct does not allow you to enter URLs, because it might be illegal for Ofcom to look at them.
What is going ON over there.
Angus Marshall 
@aphyr Hammer to crack a nut - but given that one of the categories is CSAM, it sorta makes sense. They'd be committing an offence if they looked at anything containing that, and it could be used as a DDoS against them.
@marshalla99 They accept e-mail!
Ian Bradbury@aphyr - now there’s a department I’d like to work in. I think I’d make a good supervisor.
Nick Silkey 📻 N5ILK 🪓🪵 🪣💧@aphyr "it's on you to do all the work" & "doing work that passes work to me is liability and thus not allowed" are the two things I saw Ofcom tell us, Kyle! 💃🫂
Addickted@aphyr so you report a website without giving a link to it (so essentially without being specific about what site you're reporting about) + they may not be able to review the site to process your complaint (I.e verify or assess it)? Interesting... so if they sure you over violations you can sue them back for having verified it I suppose?
c-x-b 
@aphyr imagine putting "Porn Supervision Team" in your email signature and expecting to be taken seriously. they have played us for absolute fools
Bruno Girin
Richard Smith@aphyr Welcome to the Civil Service.
Yes Prime Minister - The Key
Andrew@aphyr Franz Kafka would be proud
Chloé Raccoon
Danyal (int16h)@aphyr Kudos for trying to punish Am*z*n, regardless :D
Dudley of Yesterzine 
@aphyr @ephemeromorph I once had the police reject a harassment complaint because I swore. In a quote. Of the person harassing me.
серафими многоꙮчитїи@aphyr The first classic argument against strict liability laws for possession or viewing is that they make enforcement completely unaccountable, as possession or viewing of evidence is a crime, and even pointing at the thing or giving a complete enough set of directions to find the thing might be a crime, so the only people who can accuse people of the crime without being found criminally liable are those who laws mysteriously never seem to be applied against (eg the Met Police in the UK).
@aphyr (That is, the necessary accountability and impossibility of challenging a conviction is the first argument; the second argument is basically the same but focuses on how this protects actual perpetrators by making all witnesses who might come forward equally guilty as the perpetrators; the third is that it means that there is no need to 'frame' someone for the crime, a police officer can simply carry offending material with them when they break in to your house and that makes you guilty)
@aphyr Anyway, it is no surprise that the UK keeps advancing 'protect the children' laws that make it harder to protect children but make it really easy to go after lgbtq people and communities.
Orman
Vincent Sparks 🔜 Furlingame@aphyr if we're going to have an authoritarian government we might as well be thankful it's a hopelessly incompetent one
TerrorBite 🦁@aphyr why is a confirmation email classified CONFIDENTIAL? although that's no longer a UK Government Security Classification as of 2020 because they simplified the system, so maybe it doesn't mean what it used to
jeawhiz@aphyr This is bureaucracy. This is theater. They likely are not paying anyone to investigate complaints because that would be too expensive and cause too much harm to employees. So instead of a real solution, they collect complaints and issue fines to sites with complaints to keep up an aura of order, control, and legitimacy.
Chewie@aphyr 🤣 That is fucking insane
Baloo Uriza@aphyr Wait, did we hit maximum https://scarfolk.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-dont-campaign-and-kak-1973.html
Ret@aphyr absolutely laughable. This is Have I Got News For You level stuff.
Panellists, why aren't Ofcom accepting complaints about potentially illegal websites under the new Online Safety Act?
Anybody want to buzz in? Nope...
It's because they...
(audience laughter)