Protecting vulnerable people online
Today the government published the "Online Harms White Paper" which unveiled proposed new measures to make the UK safer online.
There are some difficult balances to strike here. It is important to protect freedom of speech and to ensure that measures to protect children and vulnerable people online are introduced after consulting people who really understand the internet, in ways which will work and not just drive people to the "dark web."
This is a real danger and there is a strong argument that some past attempts by governments of all parties to protect children from potentially harmful online content have made the internet more dangerous rather than less. It is far too easy to drive people whose online activity is legal and harms nobody else but which they don't want other people to know about into the arms of VPN suppliers at best and criminals at worst.
However, this is an argument for listening to people who understand the internet and applying an evidence-based approach which will actually work, not a good reason to sit back and do nothing. In the face of all the evidence that the present internet regime has allowed algorithms to direct vulnerable children to sites which promote self-harm and suicide, too often with tragic and literally fatal consequences, and that present arrangements have not been effective enough to deal with pro-terrorist or abusive material, it is right for the government to make the effort, working with social media companies if at all possible, to do more to protect children and vulnerable adults online.
I thought Home Secretary Sajid Javid made a very good response today when he was accused by Toby Young of failing to support free speech: he replied
"I do believe in free speech and always championed it when Culture Sec. What I don’t believe in is the freedom to post beheading videos and child sexual abuse online."
That has to be right. It cannot be beyond our capabilities to find a balance which protects the right to express opinions, however unpopular, while protecting children from online abuse, avoiding directing them to sites which glorify self-harm, and preventing terrorists from exploiting the internet without hindrance.
The comments above are my own opinions. Below is what the Home Office and DCMS have to say.
Key facts:
Why this matters:
We want the UK to be the safest place in the world to go online, and the best place to start and grow a digital business and our proposals for new laws will help make sure everyone in our country can enjoy the Internet safely.
There are some difficult balances to strike here. It is important to protect freedom of speech and to ensure that measures to protect children and vulnerable people online are introduced after consulting people who really understand the internet, in ways which will work and not just drive people to the "dark web."
This is a real danger and there is a strong argument that some past attempts by governments of all parties to protect children from potentially harmful online content have made the internet more dangerous rather than less. It is far too easy to drive people whose online activity is legal and harms nobody else but which they don't want other people to know about into the arms of VPN suppliers at best and criminals at worst.
However, this is an argument for listening to people who understand the internet and applying an evidence-based approach which will actually work, not a good reason to sit back and do nothing. In the face of all the evidence that the present internet regime has allowed algorithms to direct vulnerable children to sites which promote self-harm and suicide, too often with tragic and literally fatal consequences, and that present arrangements have not been effective enough to deal with pro-terrorist or abusive material, it is right for the government to make the effort, working with social media companies if at all possible, to do more to protect children and vulnerable adults online.
I thought Home Secretary Sajid Javid made a very good response today when he was accused by Toby Young of failing to support free speech: he replied
"I do believe in free speech and always championed it when Culture Sec. What I don’t believe in is the freedom to post beheading videos and child sexual abuse online."
That has to be right. It cannot be beyond our capabilities to find a balance which protects the right to express opinions, however unpopular, while protecting children from online abuse, avoiding directing them to sites which glorify self-harm, and preventing terrorists from exploiting the internet without hindrance.
The comments above are my own opinions. Below is what the Home Office and DCMS have to say.
Key facts:
- The era of self-regulation for online companies is over. Voluntary actions from industry to tackle online harms have not been applied consistently or gone far enough.
- Tech can be an incredible force for good and we want the sector to be part of the solution in protecting their users.
- However, those that fail to do this will face tough action.
- In the first online safety laws of their kind, social media companies and tech firms will be legally required to protect their users and face tough penalties if they do not comply.
- A new independent regulator will be introduced to ensure that companies meet their responsibilities but will be particularly mindful not to infringe privacy and freedom of expression.
- The regulator will have effective and proportionate enforcement tools that could include powers to issue substantial fines, block access to sites and potentially to impose liability on individual members of senior management.
- A 12-week consultation on the proposals has been launched today.
Why this matters:
We want the UK to be the safest place in the world to go online, and the best place to start and grow a digital business and our proposals for new laws will help make sure everyone in our country can enjoy the Internet safely.
Comments