Online Safety Bill introduced in Parliament

Responses to the bill

Commenting on the OSB’s introduction to Parliament, Matthew Fell, chief policy director at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), said that the goal of the legislation should be to make the UK an international leader, rather than an outlier, in shaping the future of the internet.

“However, the bill in its current form raises some red flags, including extending the scope to ‘legal but harmful’ content. Not only will this deter investment at a time when our country needs it most, but will fail to deliver on the aims of this legislation,” he said.

“This is an incredibly complex set of regulations and businesses will be combing through the detail over the coming days. Ensuring the bill is feasible for companies to implement is essential – they will work with policymakers to make that happen as the bill moves through Parliament.”

Geraint Lloyd-Taylor, a partner at law firm Lewis Silkin, added that many lawyers have found the amorphous concept of “harms” within it alarming: “The bill leaves a lot of unanswered questions, but it clearly poses a threat to our democratic freedoms, as it would introduce a new form of censorship (by requiring that platforms censor users) without clear boundaries and safeguards.”

Lloyd-Taylor added that while he understands frustration over how long it has taken government to bring the OSB before Parliament – a process which started with the publication of the Online Harms Whitepapers in April 2019 – “the stakes are high, and the government – and Parliament – must get this right”.

“It is not an easy task to tackle online harms without excessively impacting our fundamental rights and freedoms, such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy,” he added.

Executive director of the Open Rights Group (ORG), Jim Killock, further described the “legal but harmful” aspect of the OSB as a “censor’s charter”.

“Civil society groups have raised the warning, Parliament has raised the warning, the government’s own MPs have raised the warning, but the government has ignored them all,” he said. “Failure to remove it will ban Brits from doing normal things like making jokes, seeking help and engaging in healthy debate online.”

Killock added: “There are now lots of new and unworkable ideas tacked on at the last minute, making it a monstrous melange of fit-to-fail duties that will make minority groups less safe online.”

Andy Phippen, a fellow of BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT, and a specialist in ethics and digital rights at Bournemouth University, also questioned how effective the OSB would be at achieving the government’s stated goal of protecting children online.

“The rhetoric around the bill seems to be around making children safe, but the entire drive of the proposed legislation is tech sector regulation,” he said.

“When I talk to young people about online safety, they usually say they need supportive adults who understand the issues, and better education. None have ever demanded that big tech billionaires need to be brought to heel.

“I recently spoke to a group of young people who were clear that good online safety comes from good education and the opportunity to discuss and ask questions.”