Recommendations & Conclusions
7 items
3
Conclusion
2nd Report – Social media, misinformati…
Rejected
The Online Safety Act was not designed to tackle misinformation—we heard that even if it had been fully implemented, it would have made little difference to the spread of misleading content that drove violence and hate in summer 2024. Therefore, the Act fails to keep UK citizens safe from a …
Read more
The Online Safety Act was not designed to tackle misinformation—we heard that even if it had been fully implemented, it would have made little difference to the spread of misleading content that drove violence and hate in summer 2024. Therefore, the Act fails to keep UK citizens safe from a core and pervasive online harm. (Conclusion, Paragraph 18)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the potential impact of online misinformation but defends the Online Safety Act's proportionate approach, stating it focuses on illegal content and content harmful to children while balancing freedom of expression, and explains how providers are required to tackle such content.
Read full response →
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
18
Recommendation
2nd Report – Social media, misinformati…
Rejected
The broad scale—and serious impact—of misinformation online requires greater transparency and accountability from the government. In line with our Principle 1, the government should submit an annual report to Parliament on the state of misinformation online, tracking trends and issues from the year, and setting out successes and failures in …
Read more
The broad scale—and serious impact—of misinformation online requires greater transparency and accountability from the government. In line with our Principle 1, the government should submit an annual report to Parliament on the state of misinformation online, tracking trends and issues from the year, and setting out successes and failures in addressing them. (Recommendation, Paragraph 47)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation for an annual report on misinformation, citing national security concerns that such a report would expose vulnerabilities and hinder operations. They state they already provide updates through existing parliamentary channels.
Read full response →
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
20
Conclusion
2nd Report – Social media, misinformati…
Rejected
To ensure true responsibility from platform companies, as per Principle 3, Ofcom and DSIT should confirm that services are required to act on all risks identified in risk assessments, regardless of whether they are included in Ofcom’s Codes of Practice. (Recommendation, Paragraph 49)
Read more
To ensure true responsibility from platform companies, as per Principle 3, Ofcom and DSIT should confirm that services are required to act on all risks identified in risk assessments, regardless of whether they are included in Ofcom’s Codes of Practice. (Recommendation, Paragraph 49)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation to require services to act on all identified risks regardless of Codes of Practice, stating it is not possible within the Online Safety Act framework. They clarify that compliance is achieved by adopting measures in the Codes and believe existing …
Read full response →
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
21
Conclusion
2nd Report – Social media, misinformati…
Rejected
The Online Safety Act does not do enough to address the risks posed by small platforms due to its exclusive focus on size. Ofcom should create an additional category to cover ‘small but risky’ platforms, based on analysis of the role that harmful smaller platforms can play in the online …
Read more
The Online Safety Act does not do enough to address the risks posed by small platforms due to its exclusive focus on size. Ofcom should create an additional category to cover ‘small but risky’ platforms, based on analysis of the role that harmful smaller platforms can play in the online ecosystem, interacting with the recommendation algorithms of large platforms to spread harms such as misinformation, and disinformation campaigns. This regulation of small platforms should be in line with our Principles 1, 3 and 5. (Recommendation, Paragraph 55) 56
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation to create a new category for 'small but risky' platforms, stating they disagree that the Online Safety Act (OSA) is insufficient. They assert that the OSA's main measures already apply to such services, and a dedicated taskforce is actively driving …
Read full response →
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
34
Recommendation
2nd Report – Social media, misinformati…
Rejected
Tackling online harm means addressing the principles that incentivise and monetise its spread. In line with Principle 3, responsibility, the government should create a new arms-length body—not funded by industry—to regulate and scrutinise the process of digital advertising, covering the complex and opaque automated supply chain that allows for the …
Read more
Tackling online harm means addressing the principles that incentivise and monetise its spread. In line with Principle 3, responsibility, the government should create a new arms-length body—not funded by industry—to regulate and scrutinise the process of digital advertising, covering the complex and opaque automated supply chain that allows for the monetisation of harmful and misleading content. Or, at the least, the government should extend Ofcom’s powers to explicitly cover this form of harm, and regulate based on the principle of preventing the spread of harmful or misleading content through any digital means, rather than limiting itself to specific technologies or sectors. (Recommendation, Paragraph 98)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation to create a new arms-length body or extend Ofcom's powers to specifically regulate the monetization of harmful and misleading content. It explains that the Online Safety Act focuses on systems and processes for illegal and child-harmful content, and extending Ofcom's …
Read full response →
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
35
Conclusion
2nd Report – Social media, misinformati…
Rejected
To tackle the incentive behind amplified misinformation—namely, the monetisation of harmful content—there should be clear and enforceable standards for digital advertising market processes, as well as advertising content. Following our Principles 1, 3 and 5, government should ask the Advertising Standards Authority to establish comprehensive guidelines for 59 all actors …
Read more
To tackle the incentive behind amplified misinformation—namely, the monetisation of harmful content—there should be clear and enforceable standards for digital advertising market processes, as well as advertising content. Following our Principles 1, 3 and 5, government should ask the Advertising Standards Authority to establish comprehensive guidelines for 59 all actors within the digital advertising ecosystem and supply chain. These should be informed by the UN’s 2024 Guiding Principles for Information Integrity and developed in consultation with civil society, academics, experts, industry and policymakers. It should be designed to remove incentives for algorithmic acceleration of harmful or misleading content whilst upholding freedom of expression; ensure advertisers can avoid harmful content; and ensure transparency in technologies with public safety implications, such as digital advertising. (Recommendation, Paragraph 99)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation to ask the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to establish comprehensive guidelines for the digital advertising ecosystem. It states that setting standards for processes in the digital ecosystem falls outside the ASA's remit, instead highlighting the industry-led 'Gold Standard' scheme.
Read full response →
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
37
Conclusion
2nd Report – Social media, misinformati…
Rejected
There are insufficient disincentives for bad practice in the digital advertising market. Bad actors can exploit the ecosystem, monetising harmful content through major platforms. Following Principle 3, Ofcom should be empowered to give penalty notices to platforms when they allow harmful content to be monetised through their services. These penalties …
Read more
There are insufficient disincentives for bad practice in the digital advertising market. Bad actors can exploit the ecosystem, monetising harmful content through major platforms. Following Principle 3, Ofcom should be empowered to give penalty notices to platforms when they allow harmful content to be monetised through their services. These penalties should be based on a formula that considers: the severity of harm, the amount of revenue the publisher received, the amount of revenue the platform received, and the number of individuals that encountered the harmful content. The revenue generated from these penalties should be used to support victims of online harms. (Recommendation, Paragraph 101) 60
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation to empower Ofcom to issue penalty notices specifically for platforms monetizing harmful content. It clarifies that the Online Safety Act enables Ofcom to take enforcement action for failures in systems and processes related to illegal content and content harmful to …
Read full response →
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology