Iain Mansfield is Director of Research at Policy Exchange.
The car-crash of the Online Safety Bill may at long last have been made road-worthy. Changes announced yesterday by Michelle Donelan demonstrate that the Culture Secretary has brought the commitment to free speech that she displayed as Universities Minister to her new role.
The ditching of the dangerous ‘legal but harmful’ clause for adults, a concept that should never have aired its head under a liberal democratic government, is tremendously welcome, as is the refocusing of the Bill on protecting children, where its focus should always have been.
The Bill in its former state had been a censor’s charter, actively encouraging social media companies to ‘play it safe’ and shut down speech that might be considered ‘harmful’.
Worse, it would have been overseen by Ofcom, a state-run quango, which was to have a long list of categories, the definition of which would no doubt have been endlessly expanded under the influence of those who delight in grievance and taking offence. The new ‘Triple Shield’ will need to be scrutinised carefully, but it appears to be a major step forward.
It should be emphasised that the new version of the Bill is no panacea. It does not prevent tech companies from drawing up their own terms and conditions, which may be discriminatory, biased, or intolerant of views that do not conform to the most fashionable modern sensibilities; indeed, the Bill requires tech companies to enforce their own conditions.
But at least the Government is no longer making it worse.
The battle for a fair space for ideas online remains real. We have seen some companies attempt to stifle honest debate about matters of wide public interest, including the trade-offs of lockdowns or the conflict between gender-based and sex-based rights, through selective enforcement of terms and conditions or branding unpopular views as ‘misinformation’. The Paypal incident earlier this year, where the company demonetarised various lawful campaign groups, shows these threats remain real.
There remains therefore a strong case for extending Common Carrier requirements to tech companies that have a significant or dominant role in providing a modern ‘public square’ type service, whether in social media, payment services or retail. A clause to this effect would be a strong, positive, amendment that could be made to the Bill.
Adults should not face government censorship. Regarding children, however, it is a different matter. We have a duty, as a society, to protect children from things that are dangerous.
This principle is well-established when it comes to films and pornography – and the evidence suggests that social media can be infinitely more harmful. No less a figure than Professor Jonathan Haidt, a doughty champion of free speech, has argued that ‘The preponderance of the evidence suggests that social media is causing real damage to adolescents.’ – and he is not alone in these views.
I am afraid I do not accept the argument of those who believe that we should leave the online world to be a complete wild west. The genie is out of the bottle; we cannot remove social media from our society. But what we can do is to require tech companies to give parents the tools they need to protect their children from pornography, cyber-bullying and graphic scenes of violence or abuse.
Do many people really think 12 year olds should be having unfettered access to pornography? As a parent, I welcome this part of the bill.
The new clauses prohibiting the sharing of intimate images without a person’s consent and encouraging others to self-harm are also positive.
The first is simply a matter of common decency in a civilised society: we cannot turn a blind eye to the ease with which technology has transformed how easy it is to share images, nor the deep psychological impact it can cause for those whose privacy has been violated in this way. I also have no sympathy for sites and individuals who promote anorexia and other forms of self-harm.
This is not about free speech – it is about deeply harmful abuse. I want the authorities to be able to go after so-called ‘pro-ana’ sites – or any other forums which encourage young people to mutilate and physically harm themselves, for whatever reason – and shut them down.
Regulating social media and other technology firms represents a new frontier. They represent an entirely new way of communicating and interacting which has transformed our society and are already demonstrating tremendous potential for both good and harm.
It is likely that, as a society we’ll take a few wrong-turns and have to muddle through somewhat over the next 10-20 years, until we land on the right solution. No-one should cease to scrutinise efforts to regulate. But the Online Safety Bill now, at long-last, feels like a ‘best endeavour, based on what we know now’, rather than a disaster.
Iain Mansfield is Director of Research at Policy Exchange.
The car-crash of the Online Safety Bill may at long last have been made road-worthy. Changes announced yesterday by Michelle Donelan demonstrate that the Culture Secretary has brought the commitment to free speech that she displayed as Universities Minister to her new role.
The ditching of the dangerous ‘legal but harmful’ clause for adults, a concept that should never have aired its head under a liberal democratic government, is tremendously welcome, as is the refocusing of the Bill on protecting children, where its focus should always have been.
The Bill in its former state had been a censor’s charter, actively encouraging social media companies to ‘play it safe’ and shut down speech that might be considered ‘harmful’.
Worse, it would have been overseen by Ofcom, a state-run quango, which was to have a long list of categories, the definition of which would no doubt have been endlessly expanded under the influence of those who delight in grievance and taking offence. The new ‘Triple Shield’ will need to be scrutinised carefully, but it appears to be a major step forward.
It should be emphasised that the new version of the Bill is no panacea. It does not prevent tech companies from drawing up their own terms and conditions, which may be discriminatory, biased, or intolerant of views that do not conform to the most fashionable modern sensibilities; indeed, the Bill requires tech companies to enforce their own conditions.
But at least the Government is no longer making it worse.
The battle for a fair space for ideas online remains real. We have seen some companies attempt to stifle honest debate about matters of wide public interest, including the trade-offs of lockdowns or the conflict between gender-based and sex-based rights, through selective enforcement of terms and conditions or branding unpopular views as ‘misinformation’. The Paypal incident earlier this year, where the company demonetarised various lawful campaign groups, shows these threats remain real.
There remains therefore a strong case for extending Common Carrier requirements to tech companies that have a significant or dominant role in providing a modern ‘public square’ type service, whether in social media, payment services or retail. A clause to this effect would be a strong, positive, amendment that could be made to the Bill.
Adults should not face government censorship. Regarding children, however, it is a different matter. We have a duty, as a society, to protect children from things that are dangerous.
This principle is well-established when it comes to films and pornography – and the evidence suggests that social media can be infinitely more harmful. No less a figure than Professor Jonathan Haidt, a doughty champion of free speech, has argued that ‘The preponderance of the evidence suggests that social media is causing real damage to adolescents.’ – and he is not alone in these views.
I am afraid I do not accept the argument of those who believe that we should leave the online world to be a complete wild west. The genie is out of the bottle; we cannot remove social media from our society. But what we can do is to require tech companies to give parents the tools they need to protect their children from pornography, cyber-bullying and graphic scenes of violence or abuse.
Do many people really think 12 year olds should be having unfettered access to pornography? As a parent, I welcome this part of the bill.
The new clauses prohibiting the sharing of intimate images without a person’s consent and encouraging others to self-harm are also positive.
The first is simply a matter of common decency in a civilised society: we cannot turn a blind eye to the ease with which technology has transformed how easy it is to share images, nor the deep psychological impact it can cause for those whose privacy has been violated in this way. I also have no sympathy for sites and individuals who promote anorexia and other forms of self-harm.
This is not about free speech – it is about deeply harmful abuse. I want the authorities to be able to go after so-called ‘pro-ana’ sites – or any other forums which encourage young people to mutilate and physically harm themselves, for whatever reason – and shut them down.
Regulating social media and other technology firms represents a new frontier. They represent an entirely new way of communicating and interacting which has transformed our society and are already demonstrating tremendous potential for both good and harm.
It is likely that, as a society we’ll take a few wrong-turns and have to muddle through somewhat over the next 10-20 years, until we land on the right solution. No-one should cease to scrutinise efforts to regulate. But the Online Safety Bill now, at long-last, feels like a ‘best endeavour, based on what we know now’, rather than a disaster.