A new report from the Open Rights Group outlines how the Online Safety Act (OSA) favours big tech, harming small websites and the general public in the process.

The report, How to fix the Online Safety Act: A Rights First Approach, identifies how the Act is allowing big tech to make bigger gains, and provides key insights and recommendations to mitigate the Act’s potential for harm.

As Ofcom continues to roll out guidance to organisations for OSA compliance, a formal review on how effective the powers are in mitigating harm fairly across the scale of platforms operating online has raised concerns on how this will affect competition.

“The Online Safety Act is a sprawling and broken piece of legislation,” Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group said.

“This complicated legislation favours Big Tech who have the means and capacity to comply with the Act’s onerous provisions. Meanwhile, small sites and not-for-profits such as Wikipedia are put in an impossible position.

“In trying to tackle the worst of the web we are harming the best of it. Instead of tackling online harms, the Act concentrates the market power of Big Tech companies, exacerbating the underlying reasons that harmful content circulates.”

The Effect on Small Sites

The digital rights charity found that the OSA tends to disproportionately impact small sites. Provisions to prevent children from accessing certain content will disproportionately impact small and medium-sized businesses who may be required to conduct a risk analysis even if they are a sole trader or run a site on a voluntary basis.

These sites will have to check if they have UK users, perform a risk assessment and put themselves at the risk of fines or personal liability for prison sentences should they fail to comply with Ofcom’s directives.

Millions of sites could be impacted, and the Open Rights group reports that small sites and services are already closing, ranging from a local residents group, a video game platform, and a hamster forum.

While smaller sites may lack the technical or financial ability to comply with the OSA, this does not necessarily mean that the rules need to be changed. Smaller sites already have a different classification from major platforms, and will still be required to keep users safe online, and prevent children from accessing harmful content. This is the crux of the issue of a free and fair internet – regulation, security, and moderation all requires significant capital.

The Right to Information

The Open Rights Group also pointed out that the OSA could impact the ability of children to access information. Wikipedia, a not-for-profit online encyclopedia with content created and moderated by a fleet of volunteers, has taken legal action against how the OSA will impact its operations.

Wikipedia will be classified on the same scale as social media titans, and will be subjected to onerous provisions such as annual risk assessments and potentially having to introduce age verification to prevent children from encountering certain content.

The platform also pointed out that misinformation could run rampant on the site as moderators could be blocked by malicious posters, and their personal data may be tracked, putting it at risk of cyber threats.

The Open Rights Group highlights that in a worst-case scenario is that Wikimedia is blocked in the UK and the foundation’s representatives are made legally liable for non-compliance, which in turn would impact the UK public’s right to access information.

Report author Dia J Kayyali said: “As the UK follows in Trump’s footsteps by becoming ever more hostile to the rights of transgender people and less welcoming to immigrants, free expression online- including for LGBTQIA+ kids- is more important than ever. This important report lays out the ways the Online Safety Act could harm expression, at a time when it is more crucial than ever.”

Big Tech Dominance

The OSA and Ofcom’s guidance do not tackle the centralisation of market power and dominance of a few platforms, no do they attempt to empower users systemically. While Ofcom is not a market regulatory, the Open Rights Group says that this online harms approach risks failure on its own terms.

OSA interventions could potentially further concentrate market power, as it is Big Tech that will have the means to comply with its provisions. This could exacerbate the underlying reasons for unwanted content to circulate.

The Open Rights Group says that the OSA’s policies to tackle the most extreme content online are unlikely to succeed, and calls on the government to concentrate on other measures designed to introduce market forces for users to choose platform experiences that favour trust and positive interactions over misdirection and provocation.

Recommended

• Campaigners Slam UK Gov Over ‘Sell Out’ of Online Safety
• Wikipedia Launches Legal Challenge on Online Safety Act
• Online Safety Bill: Wikipedia Rejects Age Checks, Survivors Call for More Protection

Sensitive Data At Risk

Ofcom’s consultation discusses a number of methods of age verification that might be ‘highly effective’ when providing guidance to online platforms, noting that any selected method must be technically accurate, robust, reliable and fair. Leaving this choice to platform providers can create a supply chain relying on third-party vendors to provide age assurance.

This can create a new, large market for largely untested services to handle sensitive date, opening up a quagmire of privacy concerns.

While the Open Rights Group has suggested that providers should allow users to choose a method for identity confirmation that they already trust, this can also create technical issues with interoperability, and does not quell concerns on how age verification can potentially push young online users to darker corners of the internet.

“The Online Safety Act imposes extensive duties on online services regarding content moderation, amplification, and age verification, while putting a raft of new administrative powers and criminal offences on the statute books,” report author Dr Bernard Keenan said.

“While recognising that the current market in social media and search can and does cause harm to users, we are concerned that the Act’s approach to solving them creates other risks to freedom of expression, privacy, and market structure.

“If the Act encourages platforms to over-moderate legal content, it may result in chilling effects, disproportionate impact on marginalised or persecuted groups, and disproportionate risks on smaller services. The technical risks to privacy created by age verification tools are also highlighted. Successful implementation will depend on ensuring alignment with human rights standards.”

Don’t Miss Scotland’s Biggest Tech Event!

Join us at DIGIT Expo West on 5th June at the SEC Glasgow. Get leading industry insights across AI, Cyber Security, and Data, and grow your network at Scotland’s largest gathering of tech leaders – with 1500+ attendees, 50+ speakers, and 50+ exhibitors.

Register your FREE place now at www.digitexpowest.com