DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Striking a balance over online safety trends now
View
comments
Cracking down on the vile content that swills around social media sites in a way that doesn’t endanger freedom of expression was always going to be a fiercely difficult problem.
Until now, the Online Safety Bill had struggled to strike that delicate balance, with free speech advocates warning it could lead to censorship and the cancellation of legitimate debate.
Originally, the Bill put the onus on tech firms not only to ban illegal content but screen out that which was deemed ‘legal but harmful’. This led to fears that they would remove any contentious or complained-about material rather than risk being fined. As a result of this disquiet, the Bill may well have fallen altogether.
Cracking down on the vile content that swills around social media sites in a way that doesn’t endanger freedom of expression was always going to be a fiercely difficult problem. A file photo is used above
In its revamped form, Culture Secretary Michelle Donelan has come up with an imaginative and workable compromise.
The ‘legal but harmful’ section has been removed and replaced by a strict requirement on the media companies to enforce their terms and conditions for users.
These conditions invariably ban some odious material that falls short of criminality.
But the ban is not always enforced. Tech firms’ performance will be policed by Ofcom, which can impose huge fines for any breaches of the Bill’s terms.
Recognised news publishers also receive vital protection from being censored, as platforms are required to notify them and offer a right of appeal before removing or moderating content.
In its revamped form, Culture Secretary Michelle Donelan has come up with an imaginative and workable compromise. The ‘legal but harmful’ section
