The online safety bill continues to toe the line between freedom of speech and online safety as its major ‘legal but harmful’ clause is cut. 

The main change of the bill is in the term ‘legal but harmful’ which previously called upon large media giants – like Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube – to remove anything deemed ‘harmful’ but would still qualify as technically legal. This would potentially include racism, misogyny, and antisemitism, as well as media encouraging or depicting eating disorders and self-harm. 

Now, the bill has a ‘triple shield’ which the government claims will both uphold freedom of speech while allowing consumers to regulate the content they see. 

With the triple-shield, social media platforms are required to remove any content that is illegal as well as any content that is in breach of their terms of service, and provide clear choices to consumers so they can regulate the content they are exposed to. 

Companies will have to regulate and remove any content that is in breach of their own terms of service. Ofcom will regulate this, and can levy fines on companies that are allowing content in breach of their own terms of service. 

The amendment also makes companies offer users the ability to better regulate who is able to view their content and interact with them. Users’ blocking of other users will therefore be more effective and not have to go through further processes to be complete. 

Another landmark part of the legislation will be the introduction of a new criminal offense: the assisting or encouragement of self-harm online. 

This comes as a welcome step after cases like Molly Russel, who took her own life after witnessing self-harm encouragement on the internet. Platforms will have to take down this content as it will be deemed illegal, but the legislation is so far unclear if the platforms themselves will be held criminally liable if they fail to do so and are found guilty of having media which encourages this still up online. 

Further, the bill requires companies to publish a ‘risk assessment’ specifically for the dangers their sites and content may pose to children. These assessments will be internal reviews by the company itself, however. 

The bill would enable consumers to tailor their user experience to only include content they wish to see, and outlines certain ways companies may meet these requirements. This includes human moderation, blocking flagged content, or sensitivity warnings. 

This places a huge burden on company’s moderation teams which need to review millions of profiles, but also places power into the content creators hands. If content creators realise their content is often being flagged for sensitive content, they may change their tactics or tags to get past the first line of defence. 

Further, the online safety bill specifically says that it can regulate hateful content viewers might see that has to do with race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, and political leanings. It is unclear, however, how this might impact discussions on cases of hate speech and those dealing with violence towards different communities. 

If, for instance, users did not want to see transphobia on their timeline, they may also miss vital information about transphobic politicians or hate crimes against transgender individuals. They may even miss out on content created by transgender users discussing their own lived experience. 

The bill specifically references the ability of parents to regulate the content their children view: this is also a double-edged sword as it could simply allow parents to impart their own biases more effectively onto their children, and removes agency from children and young people. 

Protecting children on the internet is, however, a major public concern: a poll by Ipsos found that 81% of people think the government should make sure social media companies protect children. 

The new legislation proposes to do this by allowing parents to better moderate their children’s social media experience, and make sure social media platforms remove any illegal content. 

But the bill’s changes have faced backlash from Labour. Shadow culture secretary Lucy Powel said: “Replacing the prevention of harm with an emphasis on free speech undermines the very purpose of this bill, and will embolden abusers, Covid deniers, hoaxers, who will feel encouraged to thrive online.” 

The critiques are warranted as it is a major backpedal of the bill’s proposed regulations: online safety will largely be left up to companies and consumers who will be subject to their own biases. 

While companies will have to answer to Ofcom if they are in violation of their own terms of service, they themselves are in control of these terms, and vague regulations will better enable them to protect themselves from lawsuits. 

Recommended

• Meta DPC fine | What you need to know
• DirectID announced as first Scottish Fintech Champion
• Business Gateway teams with SBRC to tackle cyber threats

The online safety bill will still allow content, “such as the glorification of eating disorders, racism, antisemitism or misogyny not meeting the criminal threshold,” but companies will have to offer users the ability to avoid these topics, placing the responsibility on the consumer. 

As we have seen in Elon Musks’ twitter takeover and concerns over the influence of Tik Tok, leaving content moderation completely up to companies can do little to protect children. 

The legislation does try to protect freedom of speech by saying that companies cannot remove user-generated content or block users unless they are in direct violation of their terms of service, and the companies must ensure these terms are clear, accessible, and understandable. 

But this still has the potential to leave a lot of wiggle room as companies can leave their terms vague enough to avoid lawsuits from regulators. 

It appears that the new changes to the Online Safety Bill are an admittance that the UK government is still unsure how best to tackle such an important issue. 

The amendment says it will “go further than before to shield children and protect freedom of speech” but in order to achieve both, it may in fact be doing even less. 

Get the latest news from DIGIT direct to your inbox

Our newsletter covers the latest technology and IT news from Scotland and beyond, as well as in-depth features and exclusive interviews with leading figures and rising stars.

To subscribe, click here.