Second Report - Tackling online abuse

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 a broad foundational duty for proactive adult protection.