UK's Online Safety Bill drops rules forcing social media to remove 'legal but harmful' content The UK government has dropped the requirement forcing social media companies to remove "legal but harmful" content from its Online Safety Bill, a week before the proposal is set to return to Parliament. The change comes after lawmakers and activists raised concerns it could have a chilling effect on free speech online. In the …
The government said "The Bill will no longer define specific types of legal content that companies must address. This removes any influence future governments could have on what private companies do about legal speech on their sites, or any risk that companies are motivated to take down legitimate posts to avoid sanctions" which is a long-winded way of saying they're doing nothing about lawful but awful posts. Any future government can just change the law again anyway.
Social media companies can be fined if they don't follow their own terms of service so that's hardly going to be a challenge for them. In the very worst case they can just change their TOS and avoid a fine.
So in other words the bill is legally enforcing what is current practice and no more. It seems not upsetting GBeebies viewers is more important than stopping online bullying or plotting someone's death, however in a nod towards dystopia facial recognition is permitted to identify minors, so I'm sure the government consider that a win.
I agree that this bill enforces current practice (which includes the need to take down illegal stuff so its not the wild west). One problem is one persons bullying and harassment is another's right to express an opinion - the 'discussions' regarding trans-rights is an issue going on now where any debate or disagreement can end in the police knocking on your door.
We can all agree that there is (amongst other things) horrendous bullying that ends in youth suicide and needs to be stopped. But after that where is the subjective scale set? The good intent of legislation today isn't how it's used tomorrow - road to hell and all that...
Ah yes, the po-po showing up at your door as you posted something that 'someone might find offensive'. Not long and it will be because you might post something that someone might find offensive.
It was quite funny after Queenie popped her clogs where protesters were getting arrested and there was much screeching BUT it was the very laws these screechers had called for to 'stop hate speech' that had backfired on them.
Did any of them get charged with anything, and did the (institutionally racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic) Police again hugely over-reach in their demonstration of their legal public powers - Kettling protesters, Sarah Everard protesters, COVID lockdown breach fines (well compared to those in Government anyway) etc.
However the social media platform only has to take action when illegal content "has been reported or they become aware of its presence" (doesn't often happen for a conspiracy to commit murder) and maybe even then that only appears to be relevant for women and girls. Online Safety Bill: factsheet
I understand the stated reasons for client side scanning, but that could be so abused it's unreal. This is why apple got massive backlash when they said they were going to do this.
So, a good idea never to install a social media app on your phone or computer going forward, and if you do have one, uninstall it.
"but that could be so abused it's unreal"
Better still, impossible to detect misuse, since you can't tell what a given image hash refers to. It might be an illegal image or it might be something embarrassing to a politician. Then, by collecting the creation date, they could identify the source.
It's not possible to do Age Verification without revealing your identity.
If you reveal your identity then that's an end to Anonymity.
Free Speech includes Anonymous Speech.
If you can't speak anonymously on Social Media, then [potential] Employers can see the opinions you express and may choose not to employ you [any longer] if they don't like them.
Other people, organisations and governments may also choose to treat you adversely for the same reason.
Anonymity is the key to whistle blowers and other 100% legal activities that would otherwise result in backlash from employers such as trying to organise a union. Both of these things are in theory protected in law but the reality is very different. The deck is stacked very badly against the individual.
In an ideal world, yes. We do not live in such a world as can be seen by some of the very well written and intelligent comments made here. The last 2-3 years has shown that speaking out, even if you are eventually shown to be correct, can have very serious consequences from the 'current thing' outrage culture that we live in.
Free speech means being able to put your name to your speech without having repercussions.
It most certainly does NOT!
What you say has repercussions and effects. Some people may hate you or shun you for it. Your spouse may leave you or your children disown you. Your boss may even fire you for it. Other people may laud you for it. You might even be able to change some people's views. None of that makes the speech not "free".
Free speech means saying what you want to is not against the law. That's all.
Free speech means being able to put your name to your speech without having repercussions.
No. Freedom of speech is about the dissemination of ideas, and absolutely requires anonymity, especially if disseminating ideas disliked by those in power. The Universal Declaration of Human rights allows for freedom of speech not to be absolute, but the debate then rages over what is harmful speech e.g. is it harmful to promote the possibility of LGBTQIA+ lifestyles - some would regard it as evil, others as a right. That's not a debate for now.
However, anonymous speech in defence of political positions has been historically very powerful - The Federalist Papers, written by 'Publius'; and the pamphlet 'Common Sense', published anonymously by Thomas Paine.
The problem is, if you wish to allow for freedom of speech for 'good'/'acceptable' causes, you end up defending speech promoting unacceptable causes, like suicide instructions for teenagers, how to groom children for abuse, instructions for making bombs, and all sorts of other harmful activities. Freedom can be abused - see Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.
In an ideal world, people would not be harmed for expressing opinions, so anonymity is not necessary. In practice, we do not live in such an Utopia, so anonymous speech is needed to help protect the vulnerable. Navigating freedom of expression is not easy, and it is far easier to simply disallow it. Philosophers (e.g. Voltaire) have pondered the problem for a long time, so I'm unlikely to come up with a magic solution. It is a difficult area.
NN
"Free speech means being able to put your name to your speech without having repercussions."
It's not, it never was, it never will be. Speech has repercussions. As long as the repercussions are legal, that's fine. This means that, if I go to the person who pays me and tell them that I hate them, I'm likely to suffer the repercussion that they don't want to keep paying me. If they respond with violence, that's not acceptable, but they have lots of legal options I wouldn't like. To have speech without any repercussions means that I should be able to bury you in a stream of whatever you find the most insulting, offensive, or off-putting and you have to stand there and deal with it because even asking me to leave your house would be a repercussion of my speech. Clearly, you are not restricted in that way and subjecting you to such a situation would be cruel. Free speech means that I have the right to say the things you don't like and not get arrested, not that I get to force you to never do anything I don't like in response.
Free speech means that I have the right to say the things you don't like and not get arrested
If you take an absolutist position, yes.
But...The idea that it is not lawful to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is pretty firmly rooted into the debate over what freedom of speech means in practice - in other words, there are, or can be, some types of speech/expression that are, or should be, unlawful. The heated debate then starts over where 'the line' is drawn - for some, blasphemy should be unlawful, for others, racist or hate speech, or speech that seeks to disturb public order, and so on.
I do not have an answer, but I recognise that there are strongly held opinions, often with good philosophical backing, on all sides of the debate. I tend to a liberal viewpoint. Others don't, and while I might disagree with them, imposing my views on them is just as bad as them imposing their views on me. Recognising differences and accepting differences are two different things.
For me, the freedom to disseminate falsehoods dressed up as truth is pretty hard to justify, but if one were to take an absolutist position on freedom of speech, such things are perfectly good speech, and should be protected. So for me freedom of speech is not absolute, but I have no idea how to decide where a line should be drawn, which is a logically indefensible position. Being human, holding logically indefensible opinions comes naturally. Humanity will probably continue to muddle through.
If you are absolutist, I respect that position. I think you might come under a lot of pressure to justify some forms of speech.
NN
To clarify, I'm not exactly taking an absolutist point of view, as there are ways that some speech implements something that's already a crime and should be punished as such. I certainly know people who take a much more restrictive view than I do, though. The point of my comment is to take exception with the idea that freedom of speech applies to something other than government reactions. Many people appear to take the point of view that such a freedom means they are allowed to say whatever they want and those who disagree with them aren't allowed to do anything, no matter how legal, in response. The logical inconsistencies are or at least should be obvious but given the prevalence of the argument, they're unfortunately not.
And now the third party website knows who you are, what website you used, and when you used it. If and only if companies are not allowed to use their own does there remain any isolation, and that is isolation that can come down if the third party site is compromised by security breeches, controlled by governments (our own or someone else's), finds a way to sell the information, or just isn't extremely careful with the important data they've received.
Not for the sort of data fetishist nut-jobs who sponsor and design this sort of legislation.
It's very definitely a feature.
Didn't this start with Camerons "Child Sexulalisation Tsar" because she could programe the parentall filter on her browser?
I think it did.
… oh they will be dropped too … when the age old age verification problem become unworkable/unlawful…. AGAIN.
You either have ID cards, or you don’t. There is no appetite in the UK for them, so age verification fundamentally how’s out of the window as a deliverable and become unachievable - other than as a political Wolf Whistle.
Every government penetrated by Klaus Schwab's minions is introducing some form of such bill. This bill is crucial when it comes to collection of data points from which your social credit score could be calculated.
Saying something against Great Narrative privately to your friends? Minus 10 points for you. Oh you talked about going to that fancy restaurant? That booking has been cancelled for you.
This bill has nothing to do with "online safety", but it is more about the safety of the future regime.
The bill does the exact opposite of "enforce the great narrative" but apparently you're still not happy.
It makes it illegal for social media company to not follow the law and makes it possible for a social media company to be fined if it doesn't follow its own terms of service. Let's see if you can work out what the net effect of that is.
Social Media - a perfect example, in this digital age, of humans exploiting other humans for profit and gain. Our recorded human history is full of such behaviour. Such exploitative compulsion appears to be hard-wired into our very nature. Dangle the highly addictive shiny shiny digital treats in front of the defenceless masses and we simply cannot ignore the wonderful promises of a better, digital, existence - oh joy!
Social Media offers us absolutely nothing of any meaningful substance or practical use!
And yet here we are, with more sticking-plaster legislation, which I sadly doubt, will prove to be anywhere near fit for purpose and yet it will give the great unwashed masses a sense that the gubermint (whatever the flavour de jour happens to be), is taking real and meaningful action!
I also take issue with the use of the phrase "online safety", as I feel that it provides an entirely false sense of security in what is, in fact, an extremely impersonal and inherently unsafe environment to navigate!
"This removes any influence future governments could have on what private companies do about legal speech on their sites..."
A complete load of plural spherical objects. Any future government can amend, repeal or create any law it pleases. A fundamental constitutional principle is that no legislation can be enacted that has force in perpetuity.
Quote: "...Social media companies will still be required to..."
Quote: "...Ofcom will be entitled to..."
Quote: "...explaining how they verify age..."
Well, actually this is all just window dressing. Two reasons:
(1) The bill is suggesting that multiple impossible things can be done online before breakfast....
(2) ...and, as usual, there's absolutely no sign of a budget for enforcement
As to item #2, a good example of the lack of enforcement comes from GDPR:
- Link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/03/google-deepmind-16m-patient-royal-free-deal-data-protection-act
Yup....1.6 million medical records slurped....absolutely no sign of any "consent"....and no enforcement activity in the subsequent five years.
......and that's what law making like this is about...."We're doing something!"....and not one dollar will be spent on enforcement!!!
Anyone remember Section 28?
The BBC clearly doesn't because they had all the usual suspects out yesterday bemoaning the dropping of this test. No one had the perspicacity to point out that once legislation gets on the statute book it can be used by subsequent administrations of a completely different flavour, in pursuit of bete noir du jour.
I'm not saying that social media shouldn't be regulated, but using its deficiencies to justify suppression of free speech is a poor option. We need to find better ways to deal with the bad actors.
The BBC did (inadvertently?) restore its balance somewhat with this morning's Reith Lecture by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, well worth listening to.
That pretty neatly sums up a lot the material from a certain political party and the nasty right-wing tabloids that control it.
No I don't think it should be banned but it wouldn't be a bad idea that all their material had notes against untrue items and links to find facts. The sort of thing Twitter used to do!
We need to ask ourselves what is more important:
the mental well being of our children?
or the ability for people to view porn websites or post harmful content without the risk of being identified?
I feel that the mental well being of our children is extremely important and that social media should use age verification to prevent children accessing harmful content.
We need to ask ourselves what is more important:the mental well being of our children?
or the ability for people to view porn websites or post harmful content without the risk of being identified?
I feel that the mental well being of our children is extremely important and that social media should use age verification to prevent children accessing harmful content.
Spot the false dichotomy.
And the classic 'think of the children'.
Shirley, you don't think El Reg commentards will fall for those old techniques?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
