London, (Parliament Politics Magazine) – “Insidious” images of both child abuse and sexual violence would not be adequately blocked by the Online Safety Bill with more robust measures needing to be put into place, say Committee.
MPs who are part of the digital, culture, media and sport (DCMS) committee have concluded in their recent report that despite the aims of the Online Safety Bill, the terms are not clear or robust enough to be able to block harm and abuse online.
The aim of the bill is to place an unprecedented duty of care on Big Tech to protect online users from exposure to harm online. Julian Knight, who is chair of the Online Safety Bill called it a “missed opportunity,” going on to say “[it is not] clear nor robust enough to tackle illegal and harmful online content. Urgency is required to ensure that some of the most pernicious forms of child sexual abuse do not evade detection because of a failure in the online safety law.”
The report largely criticises the gaps in the bill that make it possible for predators to subvert the restrictions in ways that are technically legal but that cause significant damage and harm.
Pressgazette reported that DCMS Committee chairman Julian Knight said: “In its current form what should be world-leading, landmark legislation instead represents a missed opportunity.
“The Online Safety Bill neither protects freedom of expression nor is it clear nor robust enough to tackle illegal and harmful online content.”
“As the Society has previously outlined in evidence to the joint committee that has also scrutinised the bill, a broad and workable exemption for journalistic content must be included in the legislation and measures must be put in place by platforms to ensure that broad-brush algorithms do not result in the take-down of legitimate journalistic content.
“We also call on the government to look more closely at the appeals process to ensure that it works in practice and that it recognises the fast nature of today’s news process.”
Multiple parliamentary committees, third party organisations and the House of Lords have all previously criticised the lack of concrete detail in the bill protecting journalistic content, as well as a nebulous definition of “citizen journalism” that could risk any user pretending to be a citizen journalist and overwhelm the reporting system.
