Read on Twitter
Online Harms - the full response to the consultation, is the UK govenrment's final word before legislation - now published. Thread breaking bits out follows /1 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/944310/Online_Harms_White_Paper_Full_Government_Response_to_the_consultation_CP_354_CCS001_CCS1220695430-001__V2.pdf
Scope of platforms affected - social media and search but a pass-through for journalistic content (which will take some careful legislation) /2
Definitions of harm - some set out in secondary legislation. Only the largest platforms (where there is the most chance of harm and most resources to address it) will have to address harms to adults, for which a fairly high threshold is set). /3
Proposals do apply to messaging services as government tries to thread needle of privacy and safety. Govt says child abuse is such a severe harm that regulator will require companies to seek it out in private messages though NB this will have stringent safeguards on methods. /4
Codes of practice required, assessed, followed etc - NB here important wrinkle on flexibility for companies to demonstrate that they comply using methods of equivalent impact - handy flexbility and an outcomes focussed approach (as we have recommended at Carnegie) /5
Disinformation - only covered where it causes harm to an individual eg anti-vax. But not necessarily where it causes harm to society such as in undermining electoral process. Regulator to set up taskforce on dis/mis information. /6
Welcome focus on the importance of designing less harmful (even safe!) systems as we recommend at Carnegie /7
Unpacking of how harm to adults is described and list of harms that are NOT in - disappointing that fraud and consumer law not in there. Could be done with proper interlock between relevant regulators and OFCOM without overburdening the latter. /8
Some detail on which obligations fall on all companies and which on only the biggest/riskiest. Government will come under pressure on smaller platforms where highly abusive/damaging behaviour towards other adults takes place /9
Would be interesting to know how requirement to risk assess content which could be a criminal offence in the UK (eg some hate speech) will work for smaller platforms /10
The best bit is always the regulator. Ofcom's competence in balancing rights is pulled out. As is an exhortion (that will be met with weary, hollow laughter in Ofcom where they have had to sit on their hands for months) that they should get on with it. /11
After praising the indepenence of any regulator all governments then go on to pouint out how they will fiddle with it and it's no differnce here. But the intent to let OFCOM get on with it is there. /12
OFCOM can now get on with appointing more specialist staff. Worth noting that when we set OFCOM up in 2001ish it was allowed to pay market salaries to recruit and retain staff. /13
Important little regulatory detail - there will be a notification regime for large companies, fees as one would expect and a 'skilled person' report regime - potentially very useful. Skilled people should form a line... /14
Long bit (p60) on how OFCOM will work with other regulators in the UK, overseas. Vital to good outcomes and ensures the regulator does not become an ivory tower. Also what looks like Carnegie's work on regulatory interlock turned through 180degrees and badged 'co-designation' /15
The duties of regulator look like a decent balance (am taking short break from this thread will reutrn later). NB duty to innovation /16
Good that there won't be a code of practice for each harm - need to stick to a systems approach /17
How the regulator gets its information day to day is vital. Ofcom already has broad powers to request/gather information, including warranted-entry from telcos and broadcasters - looks like these wil be extended to platforms. /18
Regulator will focus on companies systems, not become individual complaints arbitrator. Regulator will oversee effecticeness of companies own schemes. No ombuds scheme proposed (some MPs will be annoyed at this)./19
Regulator will run a super complaints process where organisations can bring complaints about systems on behalf of people who suffer disproportionate harm - this is important to keep regulator on its toes. Fortunately does not suggest a 'designated bodies' method /20
Enforcement - OFCOM has a lot of experience in how enforcement works. Good to see government apparently copying across to online harms some of OFCOMs powers elsewhere - including ability to make directions. Less circumscribed than the ICO it always seems to me /21
Appeals. Another area where OFCOM's hard won experience of dealing with huge global corporations is valuable. Parliament debated and agreed to limit appeals against OFCOM decisions to JR 'legality and process' rather than 'the merits' - carried across to online harms /22
User advocacy fells novel and is highly appropriate here - a duty on OFCOM to ensure it is doing enough to understand the victim viewpoint as well as non-victims.
