⚠️ Online Safety Act: Implementation

• The Online Safety Act 2023 is a significant step towards enhancing online safety, especially for children, but its implementation by Ofcom has raised concerns among MPs.
• Sir Jeremy Wright, a key proponent of the Act, expressed worry that Ofcom is not using all available tools to improve online safety as intended by the legislation. He highlighted that the Act requires online services to assess and mitigate risks, but Ofcom’s focus seems limited to content rather than addressing broader risks.
• Ofcom’s interpretation of the Act, particularly around risk assessments and proportionality, has been criticized. There is a concern that Ofcom’s restrictive interpretation could limit innovative safety measures and potentially allow platforms to focus only on content-related harms.
• MPs stressed the importance of ensuring that the Act’s provisions are effectively implemented to protect users, especially children, from various online harms including cyber-bullying, grooming, and exposure to inappropriate content.
• Several MPs called for more proactive measures and stronger age verification systems to prevent children from accessing harmful content, including pornography and extremist material.
• There were worries about the rise of deepfake pornography and the need for immediate regulatory action to curb it, as well as calls for Ofcom to address functionalities and algorithms that could lead children to harmful content.
• Ofcom’s codes of practice, which are crucial for guiding online services, were criticized for not being ambitious or comprehensive enough. The codes are due to be finalized soon, and there is urgency to ensure they align more closely with Parliament’s intentions.
• The debate highlighted a need for parliamentary oversight of online safety regulations, possibly through a dedicated Joint Committee, to ensure the Act’s objectives are met and to adapt to the fast-evolving digital landscape.
• The Minister responded by emphasizing the Government’s commitment to rapid and effective implementation of the Act, stating that 2025 is set as the ‘year of action for online safety.’ She confirmed the Act’s measures will start impacting online experiences soon.
• Upcoming changes include enforcing safety duties from March 2025, with child safety codes to follow in the summer. The Government also plans to address issues like intimate image abuse and AI-generated child sexual abuse material in related legislation.
• Concerns about small, harmful platforms were acknowledged, with Ofcom setting up a taskforce to specifically address these ‘dark corners of the internet.’
• Overall, there is a call for Ofcom and the Government to be bolder in their implementation and enforcement of the Online Safety Act to fully realize its protective potential.

The parliamentary session on the Online Safety Act of 2023 showed a moderate level of disagreement among the participants, warranting a rating of 3 on a scale of 1 to 5. Here’s a detailed explanation of how the disagreements were manifested during the session:

1. Disagreement over Ofcom’s Interpretation and Ambition: A significant point of contention throughout the session was the interpretation and ambition of Ofcom in implementing the Online Safety Act. Sir Jeremy Wright expressed concerns that Ofcom was not fully utilizing the tools provided by the Act to enhance children’s online safety. He specifically highlighted that Ofcom’s restrictive view of what constitutes harm and their approach to proportionality seemed inconsistent with parliamentary intentions. Other members, like Jess Asato and Gregor Poynton, echoed these sentiments, indicating a shared concern over Ofcom’s cautious approach which they felt did not align with the Act’s full scope.

2. Views on the Proportionality and Measures Required by the Act: There was a clear disagreement on the interpretation of what ‘proportionate measures’ entail. Sir Jeremy Wright argued against Ofcom’s definition that requires substantial evidence of effectiveness before implementing measures. This concern was met with interest but not full resolution from the Minister, Feryal Clark, who promised to provide more detailed information on the government’s stance, indicating a lack of consensus.

3. Concerns About Small Platforms and Content Regulation: Several participants, including Martin Wrigley and Kirsty Blackman, expressed frustration that smaller platforms hosting harmful content were not categorized appropriately under the Act’s regulations. The disagreement was evident when the Minister did not directly address whether the statutory instrument would be reworked to include small but harmful sites under stricter categories, instead emphasizing Ofcom’s plans for enforcement and support.

4. Age Assurance and Safety by Design: Disagreements also extended to age assurance measures and the concept of safety by design. Participants like Jess Asato criticized the lack of a clear definition of ‘highly effective age assurance’ and called for stronger measures. Meanwhile, there was a call to focus not just on content but also on the design and functionalities of online services that could potentially harm children, a point that was debated but not resolved.

5. Need for Parliamentary Oversight: The debate over the need for enhanced parliamentary oversight of digital regulation implementation was another area of disagreement. Sir Jeremy Wright advocated for a new parliamentary committee to scrutinize digital legislation, a call that was not strongly echoed or opposed directly by others but was met with the Minister’s understanding of the importance of scrutiny without committing to immediate action.

Overall, while the session displayed consensus on the importance of the Online Safety Act and the need for its robust implementation, the level of disagreement primarily stemmed from concerns over Ofcom’s interpretation and execution of the Act’s provisions, the definition and application of proportionality, the handling of smaller but dangerous platforms, and the call for more stringent age assurance and safety design measures. The disagreements, while significant, did not escalate to overt conflict, resulting in a moderate rating of 3 for disagreement.