Government Propose to Setup UK Regulator for Internet Censorship

The UK Government is to publish a new ‘Online Harms White Paper‘ that proposes to establish a regulator for internet content, which among other things would be tasked with forcing websites to remove bad content (e.g. hate speech, fake news) and even blocking or imposing fines upon those that fail to comply.

Until now most of the online world has tended to operate through a system of self-regulation. Sadly some of those content providers have struggled to tackle recent challenges, such as election interference by foreign states (e.g. fake news propaganda), stamping out terrorist or criminal material online. Not to mention the plague of internet trolling (i.e. people who post generally abusive or harmful content) and “fake news“.

Lest we forget that the 2017 Conservative Party Manifesto promised to “take steps to protect the vulnerable and give people confidence to use the internet without fear of abuse, criminality or exposure to horrific content.” Indeed the principle of what they’d like to deliver is perfectly understandable, although there could be some negative consequences (more on that later).

Broadly speaking the new paper proposes to introduce a legal duty of care upon internet websites, which would be enforced by Ofcom or a new regulator via a code of practice. The key proposals are as follows.

Brief Summary of the Proposals

– Establish a new regulator for internet content (possibly Ofcom, but yet to be decided).

– Companies that ignore the rules could face huge fines and bosses who are proven to have been negligent of their responsibilities could also be held personally liable.

– Social media sites will be expected to tackle a range of problem areas including inciting violence / spreading violent content (including terrorist content), encouraging self-harm or suicide, fake news / spreading disinformation, cyber bullying, child exploitation and abuse content.

– Websites may also need to implement measures to prevent children accessing inappropriate material (Age Verification again?)

– The rules will focus upon major social networks (Facebook, Twitter etc.) but also target smaller file-hosting sites, online forums, messaging services and even internet search engines.

– Websites that fail to comply could be blocked. We assume this would have to be carried out by UK broadband ISPs, like the forthcoming porn blocks, and is thus likely to be easily circumvented.

The key focus of all this is clearly intended for the eyes of major content providers, with Twitter and Facebook being primary targets. On the other hand some would argue that they’ve already taken significant steps to tackle such content and that rushing toward regulation may end up being counter-productive.

Theresa May, UK Prime Minister, said:

“The internet can be brilliant at connecting people across the world – but for too long these companies have not done enough to protect users, especially children and young people, from harmful content,” she said.

That is not good enough, and it is time to do things differently. We have listened to campaigners and parents, and are putting a legal duty of care on internet companies to keep people safe.

Online companies must start taking responsibility for their platforms, and help restore public trust in this technology.”

Commercial websites, like those mentioned above, are highly likely to try and reduce their liability for bad content by introducing automated filtering systems, which are notorious for being overzealous and unable to understand context (e.g. people joking about blowing up a city vs actual terrorist discussions). The end result is usually significant over-blocking of lawful content (mass censorship).

In keeping with that there’s the age old problem of how you define “hate speech,” as well as who decides what is “fake news” online in the first place and then separates that from related content, which may include criticism of the same subject, as well as satire, the right to cause offence, political free speech and so forth. Automated filters won’t get this right.

Meanwhile there’s still a big question mark over the accuracy and effectiveness of online Age Verification systems. Not to mention that the huge scale of recent hacks and personal data thefts has resulted in people becoming less likely to trust online services with their personal data, which doesn’t bode well for anybody thinking of asking their users for more personal data or even financial details.

The Government’s former culture secretary, John Whittingdale, has already spoken about the risk of creating a “draconian censorship regime” and of harming free speech like already happens in a number of places. “Countries such as China, Russia and North Korea, which allow no political dissent and deny their people freedom of speech, are also keen to impose censorship online, just as they already do on traditional media,” he said.

UPDATE 9:31am

Details of the new code of practice, updated digital charter and online harms white paper have now been published. A consultation on the white paper will run until 23:59 on 1st July 2019.

UPDATE 3:18pm

The UK Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) has warned that ISPs will face growing challenges if required to block non-compliant sites.

Andrew Glover, Chair of the ISPA, said:

“Today’s Online Harms White Paper makes it clear that the onus is on social media sites and other parts of the internet value chain to step up to the plate and to take more responsibility for the content on their platforms.

ISPA has always maintained that the White Paper should create a framework for regulation that takes an evidence-based, holistic and proportionate approach to policy-making, instead of kneejerk responses to individual harms.

The proposals outlined in the White Paper appear to share this view, but they are also ambitious and far-reaching. We will be working with our members through the consultation process to help answer some of the key questions that inevitably arise from such a broad consultation. These include the nature of the regulator and role of Government, companies in scope and enforcement.

The White Paper lists ISP blocking of non-compliant sites as a potential enforcement mechanism of last resort. However, as technology evolves, including through new technical protocols such as DNS-over-HTTPS, the ability of ISPs to put in place technical measures could be substantially reduced. The legal basis of any blocking action taken will also need to be clear.”