3 ms·
This post is really mixed up which, for a lawyer, is really disappointing to read. He can’t seem to decide if Ofcom’s position is that the geo blocking was dis
by scott_w 11mo ago
This post is really mixed up which, for a lawyer, is really disappointing to read.
He can’t seem to decide if Ofcom’s position is that the geo blocking was disabled or that it’s not sufficient. He seems to flip flop between the two positions throughout the post.
This is really strange because he cites Ofcom’s statement! How can he not know what they’re investigating after he’s been told!
In addition, he seems under the impression that Samaritans (a suicide prevention charity) are either a part of Ofcom or if they’re a pro censorship pressure group.
Lesser issues are that he doesn’t understand the government operates out of Whitehall, not Westminster (which is Parliament) and that Parliament can put pressure on government organisations but ultimately it’s independent so Parliament and the government can only ask Ofcom to investigate (outside of passing legislation).
- kassner 11mo agoI guess the case he’s making is that not even Ofcom knows, because it has nothing to do with the block itself. They want to make a scene, however possible.
- scott_w 11mo agoYou can’t infer that from the statement posted. In fact, all Ofcom have done is say they’re investigating. Do you expect a regulatory body to not investigate a report from a serious suicide prevention charity? In addition, such an inference flies in the face of the fact that Ofcom have sent staff to conferences for pornographic websites to talk to them about compliance: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/sep/21/were-here-to-help-how-ofcom-is-urging-porn-sites-to-follow-the-online-safety-act https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/sep/21/were-here-to...
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]