4 ms·

Ofcom is an independent regulator; it's far from the "first-party" you're implying it is.

by oneeyedpigeon 2y ago

pixxel 2y ago
JFC. You probably think the BBC is impartial.
- blitzar 2y ago
  Everyone knows the BBC is biased against their side.
nohuck13 2y ago
This is a press release, though. Whether or not Ofcom is independent, their press release writers are not independent, they are part of Ofcom's PR team, a team that absolutely exists.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Mindwipe 2y ago
Ofcom really isn't actually independent on Online Safety in any way. It has to obey instructions on prioritisation from the secretary of state and has no real operational flexibility. As with much of the (dire) UK legislation here, the government saying something is true until it is blue in the face does not make it true.
- vogon_laureate 2y ago
  The Online Safety Act provides for Ofcom to develop its own codes of practice and guidelines based on the provisions of the act and public consultation (including with the platforms). It has an enormous amount of leeway in deciding how to implement the Act. Ofcom has operational independence. Neither its investigations nor its enforcement actions are directly controlled by the Government. The Government does approve Codes of Practice but if it doesn't approve, it can only request modifications. It's still up to Ofcom to decide how to interpret and implement. Secretary of State interventions are, by convention, rare and subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
  - vogon_laureate 2y ago
    I love how this got downvoted. I literally consulted on the draft legislation.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
collyw 2y ago
[flagged]
randomcarbloke 2y ago
there is no quango in the UK that is independent, they are all, without exception "independent" with an implied nudge and a wink.
pjc50 2y ago
The Q in Quango stands for Quasi.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  Right, so calling it "3rd party" would be a stretch, but it's definitely not "1st party". I think "2nd party" would be a fair compromise.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

Ofcom is an independent regulator; it's far from the "first-party" you're implying it is.

pixxel 2y ago

JFC. You probably think the BBC is impartial.

blitzar 2y ago
Everyone knows the BBC is biased against their side.

nohuck13 2y ago

This is a press release, though. Whether or not Ofcom is independent, their press release writers are not independent, they are part of Ofcom's PR team, a team that absolutely exists.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Mindwipe 2y ago

Ofcom really isn't actually independent on Online Safety in any way. It has to obey instructions on prioritisation from the secretary of state and has no real operational flexibility. As with much of the (dire) UK legislation here, the government saying something is true until it is blue in the face does not make it true.

vogon_laureate 2y ago
The Online Safety Act provides for Ofcom to develop its own codes of practice and guidelines based on the provisions of the act and public consultation (including with the platforms). It has an enormous amount of leeway in deciding how to implement the Act. Ofcom has operational independence. Neither its investigations nor its enforcement actions are directly controlled by the Government. The Government does approve Codes of Practice but if it doesn't approve, it can only request modifications. It's still up to Ofcom to decide how to interpret and implement. Secretary of State interventions are, by convention, rare and subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
- vogon_laureate 2y ago
  I love how this got downvoted. I literally consulted on the draft legislation.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

collyw 2y ago

[flagged]

randomcarbloke 2y ago

there is no quango in the UK that is independent, they are all, without exception "independent" with an implied nudge and a wink.

pjc50 2y ago

The Q in Quango stands for Quasi.

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
Right, so calling it "3rd party" would be a stretch, but it's definitely not "1st party". I think "2nd party" would be a fair compromise.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]