Recommendations & Conclusions
4 items
9
Recommendation
2nd Report – Social media, misinformati…
Deferred
There is a shortfall in data needed to accurately analyse the scale of the problem and identify policy solutions. In line with our Principle 4, the government should commission a large-scale research project into how far social media recommendation systems spread, amplify or prioritise harmful content. This should be undertaken …
Read more
There is a shortfall in data needed to accurately analyse the scale of the problem and identify policy solutions. In line with our Principle 4, the government should commission a large-scale research project into how far social media recommendation systems spread, amplify or prioritise harmful content. This should be undertaken by a group of credible independent researchers, bringing diverse perspectives, with full access to the inner functions of the systems that major platforms use to algorithmically recommend content, including the private, external, and third party data used to train their systems; the user, content and engagement attributes the algorithms rely on and how these are weighted, and the objectives the algorithms are optimised for; where user interactions reinforce future recommendations; and any curation rules or interventions that influence promotion or suppression of content. We expect full cooperation from all major services that employ recommendation algorithms. (Recommendation, Paragraph 29)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states that Ofcom, as the independent online safety regulator, is best placed to judge and undertake research into content recommender systems, rather than the government commissioning a project directly. It also points to the Data (Use and Access) Act, which will create a …
Read full response →
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
10
Recommendation
2nd Report – Social media, misinformati…
Deferred
Based on the research described above, the government should publish conclusions on the level and nature of harm that these platforms promote through their recommendation systems. Following our Principle 3, if significant harm is found, the responsible online services should publish the actions they will take to address these harms. …
Read more
Based on the research described above, the government should publish conclusions on the level and nature of harm that these platforms promote through their recommendation systems. Following our Principle 3, if significant harm is found, the responsible online services should publish the actions they will take to address these harms. Ofcom should be given the power to serve penalty notices to services that fail to comply, either 10% of the company’s worldwide revenue, or £18 million, whichever is higher. (Recommendation, Paragraph 30) 54
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government redirects the recommendation to Ofcom, stating it is best placed to consider it, oversee risk assessments, and guide platforms on addressing harms from recommendation systems. It notes that Ofcom already possesses the power to impose fines of up to £18 million or 10% …
Read full response →
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
28
Recommendation
2nd Report – Social media, misinformati…
Deferred
Principle 5 is crucial for addressing potential harms from generative AI, as there is currently a serious shortfall in transparency and oversight of the platforms and systems that allow users to create AI-generated content. The government should require providers of generative AI services to provide information to those carrying out …
Read more
Principle 5 is crucial for addressing potential harms from generative AI, as there is currently a serious shortfall in transparency and oversight of the platforms and systems that allow users to create AI-generated content. The government should require providers of generative AI services to provide information to those carrying out independent research into online safety. This should include data such as platforms’ internal decision-making processes, training datasets, optimisation objectives, safety mechanisms and guardrails on outputs. (Recommendation, Paragraph 77)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states that provisions in the Data (Use and Access) Act empower the DSIT Secretary of State to create a future framework for independent researchers to access online safety data, which will provide a legislative footing for their research once implemented. This defers the …
Read full response →
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
36
Recommendation
2nd Report – Social media, misinformati…
Deferred
The internet, and social media, could not operate without digital advertising. Given its implications for public safety, as per Principle 5, there needs to be heightened transparency in the market processes of online advertising. Government should mandate ‘Know Your Customer’ checks for participants in the programmatic advertising supply chain, as …
Read more
The internet, and social media, could not operate without digital advertising. Given its implications for public safety, as per Principle 5, there needs to be heightened transparency in the market processes of online advertising. Government should mandate ‘Know Your Customer’ checks for participants in the programmatic advertising supply chain, as exists in other large markets. The government should also ensure that platforms disclose full ad campaign data, and allow independent third-party audits and vetting of ad exchange supply partners. (Recommendation, Paragraph 100)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges concerns regarding trust and transparency in online advertising and commits to exploring options for 'Know Your Customer' checks, alongside other interventions, through its continued work with the Online Advertising Taskforce. However, it does not commit to mandating these checks or to ensuring …
Read full response →
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology