Recommendations & Conclusions
6 items
4
Recommendation
Second Report - Tackling online abuse
Rejected
It is appropriate for legal but harmful content to be included in the scope of the Online Safety Bill. The balance of evidence we heard suggests that it is necessary to address this content in the Bill to help protect people from online abuse and promote free speech among groups …
Read more
It is appropriate for legal but harmful content to be included in the scope of the Online Safety Bill. The balance of evidence we heard suggests that it is necessary to address this content in the Bill to help protect people from online abuse and promote free speech among groups currently unable to fully express themselves online. However, the lack of clarity in the draft version of the Bill on what content will be covered under this definition is unhelpful. Providing greater clarity on the scope and scale of content the Government expects this definition to capture, and reducing reliance on Ministerial powers to designate such content via secondary legislation at a later date, would be more consistent with respect for freedom of expression. We recommend that the Online Safety Bill should include as comprehensive an indication as possible of what content will be covered under its provisions on content that is harmful to adults or to children in the primary legislation.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects including a comprehensive indication of harmful content in primary legislation, stating they will use secondary legislation to designate priority harmful content after consulting with Ofcom. This approach aims to balance certainty for businesses with the flexibility to adapt to emerging harms.
Read full response →
6
Recommendation
Second Report - Tackling online abuse
Rejected
We recommend that the Online Safety Bill should include a statutory duty for the Government to consult with civil society organisations representing children and users who are most affected by online abuse on the legislation’s ongoing effectiveness at tackling online abuse, and how it could be refined to better achieve …
Read more
We recommend that the Online Safety Bill should include a statutory duty for the Government to consult with civil society organisations representing children and users who are most affected by online abuse on the legislation’s ongoing effectiveness at tackling online abuse, and how it could be refined to better achieve this goal. This should include, but need not be limited to, explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to consult with such organisations when reviewing the regulatory framework as set out in Section 115 of the draft Bill. The organisations consulted in this way should include those consulted by Ofcom in developing codes of practice and transparency reporting guidance for platforms.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation for a statutory duty to consult civil society, explaining that the Secretary of State has flexibility to consult as appropriate and Ofcom already has extensive consultation duties under the Bill.
Read full response →
11
Recommendation
Second Report - Tackling online abuse
Rejected
Abusive content hosted on smaller platforms can play a significant role in helping to encourage prejudicial attitudes or even real-world harm. Failure to address this content would risk significantly undermining the potential impact of the proposed online safety legislation in tackling online and offline hate. The duties set out in …
Read more
Abusive content hosted on smaller platforms can play a significant role in helping to encourage prejudicial attitudes or even real-world harm. Failure to address this content would risk significantly undermining the potential impact of the proposed online safety legislation in tackling online and offline hate. The duties set out in the Online Safety Bill relating to content that is legal but harmful to adults must apply to a wide enough range of platforms to ensure that abusive content is removed from the online sphere, not merely shifted from larger platforms onto smaller ones subject to less regulatory oversight.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation to apply duties for legal but harmful content to a wider range of platforms, arguing that it is not appropriate to require removal of legal content and that the current proportionate categorisation focuses on high-reach Category 1 services.
Read full response →
12
Recommendation
Second Report - Tackling online abuse
Rejected
We recommend that the Online Safety Bill requires smaller (non-category 1) platforms to take steps to protect users from content that is legal but harmful to adults, with a particular focus on ensuring these platforms cannot be used to host content that has the potential to encourage hate or prejudice …
Read more
We recommend that the Online Safety Bill requires smaller (non-category 1) platforms to take steps to protect users from content that is legal but harmful to adults, with a particular focus on ensuring these platforms cannot be used to host content that has the potential to encourage hate or prejudice towards individuals or communities.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects requiring smaller platforms to tackle legal but harmful content to adults, stating it is not appropriate to mandate interference with legal content. They reaffirm the Bill's proportionate approach, which focuses these duties on high-reach Category 1 services.
Read full response →
14
Conclusion
Second Report - Tackling online abuse
Rejected
The Government’s regulatory proposals should encourage social media companies to prevent or reduce the risk of users being harmed by abusive and hateful content in the first place, not just remove or otherwise deal with such content as it arises. However, the draft Online Safety Bill gives Ofcom very limited …
Read more
The Government’s regulatory proposals should encourage social media companies to prevent or reduce the risk of users being harmed by abusive and hateful content in the first place, not just remove or otherwise deal with such content as it arises. However, the draft Online Safety Bill gives Ofcom very limited scope to ensure platforms are taking positive steps to protect adult users from this risk where abuse falls below the criminal threshold. Where content has been identified as harmful, users should be able to expect platforms to take proportionate steps to proactively protect their safety and wellbeing, and the regulator should be able to ensure this expectation is being met.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects reformulating the regulatory framework, arguing its current design creates specific duties for platforms to assess and mitigate risks for different harm categories, and provides proportionate systems to remove illegal and child-harming content. They believe this approach is effective and clear, rather than …
Read full response →
15
Recommendation
Second Report - Tackling online abuse
Rejected
We support calls for the Online Safety Bill to include a foundational duty on platforms to protect users from reasonably foreseeable risks of harm identified in their risk assessments, including harm arising from abusive content that is legal but harmful to adults. We recommend that this should include an explicit …
Read more
We support calls for the Online Safety Bill to include a foundational duty on platforms to protect users from reasonably foreseeable risks of harm identified in their risk assessments, including harm arising from abusive content that is legal but harmful to adults. We recommend that this should include an explicit expectation that platforms consider how not only content moderation, but also changes to system design and user functionalities, could help mitigate or prevent these risks. (Paragraph 67) Online abuse and the criminal law
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation for a single foundational duty to protect users from foreseeable harm, arguing it would create an uncertain operating environment. However, it states the Bill already requires service providers to assess risks linked to service design and user functionalities.
Read full response →