The warnings come as part of the Committee’s inquiry into ‘hate crime and its violent consequences’, launched last year after the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox. While the report scrutinises dangerous content, it is also critical of the approaches taken by Facebook, Google, and Twitter towards policing their platforms of more general ‘harmful’ material as well.

Robert Godwin Sr.’s death was viewed by thousands of users before the videos were ‘contained’. It came only days after a 13-year-old fatally injured himself on Instagram Live whilst handling a gun.

But the spread of distressing content across these platforms is nothing new. In early January the torture of a mentally disabled man was broadcast on Facebook Live from Chicago for nearly 30 minutes. Almost a year ago, a young woman streamed her suicide at a train station just south of Paris on Twitter’s live platform Periscope.

During Facebook Live’s launch last year, Mark Zuckerberg declared: “We built this big technology platform so we can go and support whatever the most personal and emotional and raw and visceral ways people want to communicate are as time goes on.”

Presumably, Zuckerberg did not have murder in mind. But this is precisely the problem, if you provide a platform which allows people to communicate to a mass audience without constraint, then you do so for better or worse.

Traditionally, media organisations which wield this kind of power are held to account for the content they broadcast. After recent events people are beginning to question why social media should be any different, and now official bodies are examining the problem.

The Home Affairs Committee’s report said: “The Government should now assess whether the continued publication of illegal material and the failure to take reasonable steps to identify or remove it is in breach of the law, and how the law and enforcement mechanisms should be strengthened in this area.”

The report identifies Facebook, Twitter and Google in particular as continuing to financially benefit from user-generated content (UGC) while failing to protect individuals from harmful images and videos.

Facebook generated over $10bn in net income in 2016, operating a business model which exploits the lucrative benefits of UGC. The potential revenue from UGC was highlighted by marketing start-up Mavrck’s ‘Facebook User-Generated Content Benchmark Report’ which found users were around seven times more likely to engage with posts from other people rather than branded content.

But the current practice favoured by Facebook and Twitter relies predominantly on the users themselves to flag distressing content. It is to this particular aspect which MPs seemed to take umbrage: Yvette Cooper, Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, branded this ‘laissez-faire’ approach as ‘shameful’ and a ‘disgrace’.

Relying on an audience also gives live incidents a new and uncharted dimension – large-scale interaction. In 2007, a 42 year-old British man hung himself on camera in a chat forum that encouraged users to insult one another. According to reports, some viewers allegedly goaded him into the act. It provoked concerns that audiences, sometimes thousands-strong, could have dangerous and unpredictable effects on events as they unfold, in real time, across social media.

In the wake of Godwin Sr.’s murder Justin Osofsky, VP of Facebook’s Global Operations, claimed that Facebook was ‘reviewing reporting flows’. He added that Facebook was also exploring new ways of preventing videos from being shared ‘in their entirety’, including the use of artificial intelligence (AI). Osofsky also conceded however that no users had reported the perpetrator’s first video, where he detailed his intent to murder.

Facebook has had provisions to protect users from distressing content since launch, including tools for people who may be in crisis. But despite these measures, the site continues to be plagued by harmful content.

Google is also suffering a crisis of confidence after it was reported that a number of advertisements for large companies, universities and charities were appearing on YouTube videos supporting extremist views. In the days following, a number of these organisations, including the UK Government, removed their adverts from YouTube. A spokesperson for the Government told the Home Affairs Committee that this ban would remain, “until such time as Google can give definitive assurance that Government messages will be delivered in a safe and appropriate way”.

The Malicious Communications (Social Media) Bill could afford bodies such as Ofcom the muscle it needs to enforce more stringent sanctions, such as fines. Introduced by Labour MP Anna Turley last year, the bill suggests that social media organisations will have to implement ‘reasonable means’ to police bullying, harassment or abusive material.

If passed into law, social networks could face fines of up to £2 million, or 5% of their global turnover. The bill, which is currently up for Parliamentary consideration, is broadly similar to a decision from the German cabinet, which agreed in April to fine social media organisations up to 50 million Euros for failure to remove “hateful postings” quickly enough.

It has the support of a number of female MPs who have been the victims of online abuse, including Jess Philips who last year received over 600 rape threats. A study backed by Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs found that in a three week period last year over 6,500 women were the target of abusive tweets from UK Twitter accounts.

The Bill, unlike previous Communications Acts, will be the first to specifically target social media companies and police their activity.

Social Networks have highlighted the difficulties of balancing censorship and free speech. The task is further complicated by the fact that offense is a subjective issue, what one might find deeply offensive, others may not.

However, the Home Affairs Committee’s stance seems to be clear: “What is illegal offline should be illegal – and enforced – online.”