Controversial provisions in the Online Safety Bill that would have required large technology companies to remove legal but damaging content have been eliminated.
Critics of the bill section argued that it represented a threat to free expression.
Michelle Donelan, secretary of culture, rejected lowering legislation safeguarding social media users and stated that adults would have greater control over what they viewed online.
The internet-policing bill is expected to become law in the United Kingdom by next summer.
However, some have criticized the most recent reforms, including Labour and the Samaritans, who deemed it an enormous step backward.
Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, a teenager who committed suicide after reading a suicide and self-harm video online, stated that the bill had been watered down and that the decision may have been taken for political reasons to expedite its passage.
Previously, the bill included a provision requiring “the largest, highest-risk platforms” to address certain lawful but harmful content viewed by adults.
Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube would have been entrusted with stopping people from being exposed to content such as self-harm, eating disorders, and misogynistic messages, for example.
Instead, tech firms will be instructed to implement a filtering system that gives users greater choice over the content they see.
Ms. Donelan stated that the measure was not being toned down and that the tech company possessed the skills to protect individuals online.
“These are enormous, enormous organizations with the resources, knowledge, and technology to comply,” she said.
Those that did not comply would risk substantial fines and “massive reputational damage,” she warned.
Some critics of the bill’s provision contended that it allowed technology corporations to restrict legal speech.
It was “legislation for injured sentiments,” as former Conservative candidate for the leadership Kemi Badenoch put it.
In July, nine senior Conservatives, including former ministers Lord Frost, David Davis, and Steve Baker, who have since returned to the cabinet, addressed a letter to then-Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries stating that a future Labour government may use the provision to restrict free expression.
If a platform’s terms of service permit it, adults will be able to access and upload any lawful content; but, children must still be protected from viewing hazardous content.
Mr. Davis told that he was relieved that the legal but detrimental responsibilities had been removed from the law, but that he still had “severe concerns” regarding the threat to privacy and freedom of expression, which might “undermine end-to-end encryption.
In certain circumstances, the bill authorizes the government to direct corporations to utilize technology to analyze private communications.
“I urge the government to approve the revisions I’ve proposed to rectify these technological notices so that they no longer pose a threat to encryption, which we all rely on for online security,” he added.
Lucy Powell, shadow culture minister for Labour, criticized the decision to lift restrictions on “legal but dangerous” content.
She stated that it “gives abusers a free pass and takes the public for a ride” and was “a substantial weakening, not a strengthening, of the bill.”
Julie Bentley, the CEO of the organization Samaritans, stated that the harmful effects of this type of content do not end at age 18.
“Increasing the controls that people have is not a substitute for keeping websites accountable through the law, and this feels like the government snatching defeat from the mouths of triumph.”
Ms. Donelan, though, told that the new measure provided “a triple shield of protection, so it is in no way weaker.”
This calls for platforms to:
- delete unlawful content
- Remove content that violates their terms of service
- Provide users with controls to enable them to avoid viewing content specified by the bill.
This could include anything that promotes eating disorders or incites hatred based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender reassignment; however, exceptions will be made to allow for reasonable debate.
But the first two components of the triple-shield were already incorporated into the proposed legislation.
At its core, this complex bill has a straightforward objective: online behavior that is illegal or unpleasant in real life should be treated similarly.
However, this would necessitate limiting the influence of large technology businesses and ending the period of self-regulation.
Getting the bill this far has required a delicate balancing act. The elimination of the necessity to define “legal but harmful” content may have appeased free speech proponents.
Including new criminal offenses related to promoting self-harm or spreading explicit fake pornography might be viewed as a victory for activists.
However, it will not satisfy everyone; the Samaritans, for instance, believe it does not effectively protect adults from hazardous content.
The Molly Rose Foundation, which was established by Molly Russell’s family, believes that the bill has been weakened. It was stated in a statement that it is not about the right of expression, but rather the freedom to live.
And many aspects of the measure are still uncertain.
Internet safety advocate Mr. Russell stated, “I believe the most destructive content to [Molly] was legal but harmful content.”
He continued, “It is quite difficult to comprehend why something crucial as recently as July, when the measure would have had a full reading in the House of Commons and was included in the law, this legal but detrimental substance, now cannot be there.”
Regarding minors, Culture Secretary Ms. Donelan told Today that “nothing is being toned down or removed” from the measure.
She said, “The content that Molly Russell saw will not be permitted as a result of this measure, and similar incidents will no longer arise because we’re preventing them from happening.”
The Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) stated that platforms may feel “off the hook” due to the current emphasis on user settings “instead of active responsibilities to deal with bad actors and dangerous content.”
It was stated that Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter demonstrated the need for strict regulations. Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, had his account reinstated after it had been suspended for anti-Semitic statements.
Imran Ahmed, chief executive officer of the CCDH, noted that it was positive that the government “had reinforced the law against self-harm incitement and sharing of intimate photographs without agreement.”
Recently, it was stated that the updated Online Safety Bill would criminalize the advocacy of self-harm.
Fine companies
Other reforms will compel technology businesses to examine and publicize the potential risk of harm to minors on their websites.
Companies must also explain how they will enforce age restrictions; knowing the ages of users will be crucial to keeping youngsters from accessing certain types of information.
And accounts of users shall not be deleted unless they have violated the law or the site’s policies.
Dr. Monica Horten, a tech policy expert at the Open Rights Group, stated that the bill lacked clarity regarding how companies will determine the age of users.
“Companies are expected to employ AI systems that analyze biometric data, such as head and hand measurements, as well as voices,” she said.
This is a formula for a gated internet, which is currently subject to minimal regulation and managed by private third parties.
The new rule will be mostly enforced by the communications and media regulator Ofcom, which will have the authority to penalize businesses up to 10% of their global revenue.
It is now required to contact the victims’ commissioner, the domestic abuse commissioner, and the children’s commissioner when drafting the codes that technology businesses must abide by.
