Online Safety Bill - Clause 1

The intervention supports the Bill, specifically mentioning that it will honour Sir David Amess's request to protect MPs from misogynistic abuse.

Asked for assurance that concerns about eating disorders and bullying in schools would be addressed by the Bill, showing support for the proposed legislation.

Urged the Secretary of State to adopt a Law Commission recommendation to introduce an offence for encouraging or assisting self-harm, reinforcing support for the Bill.

Suggested that internet companies should be held accountable in the same way as traditional publishers if they allow anonymous posts, reinforcing support for the Bill.

Criticised gaps in the Bill such as lack of coverage for gaming and virtual reality. Raised concerns about non-mandatory codes of practice encouraging a race to the bottom.

Asked for confirmation that amendments would be tabled to ensure platforms protect access to journalism from recognised news publishers, supporting the Bill's intent.

Mr Dan Carden supports his hon. Friend's argument that social media companies must do more than follow their own rules to prevent children and adults from being driven towards harmful content.

Ms Wera Hobhouse asks if a list of core legal harms could be included in the Bill to address the growing torrent of racist, antisemitic and misogynistic abuse.

Mr Christian Wakeford asks why a list of legal harms has not been specified in schedule 7 to help address emerging threats through secondary legislation.

Mr Matt Rodda seeks further clarification on the point raised by his hon. Friend about addressing legal harms and emerging threats through secondary legislation.

The speaker argues that social media platforms should have greater accountability and transparency in their content moderation practices. He supports the government's approach to giving Parliament control over legal but harmful content through secondary legislation, but raises concerns about cross-platform grooming and suggests extending provisions to other major carriers of disinformation. Additionally, he recommends allowing organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation to identify where companies fail to meet their duty of care.

The speaker emphasises the human cost of abuse on the internet, advocating for legislation that would compel social media firms to tackle harmful content. She supports a 'polluter pays' principle and calls for third-party verification checks instead of platforms verifying identities themselves. Margaret Hodge also stresses the importance of personal liability for directors who breach safety duties.

Expresses caution on the Bill, citing concerns about stifling innovation and growth due to uncertainty in secondary legislation. Supports protection for journalism but raises questions about freedom of speech and the definition of 'legal but harmful'.

Raises multiple concerns about the scope, detail, delegation to statutory instruments, lack of mandatory codes of practice, need for an ombudsman service, and exemptions in clauses 5, 6, and 50.

Argues that the Bill effectively covers the systems and algorithms of social media companies, including content recommendation mechanisms. Cites evidence from Ofcom and other sources stating that these elements are within regulatory scope. Emphasises the necessity for proactive identification and removal of harmful content by companies. Advocates for robust risk assessment and enforcement through codes of practice set by the regulator. Supports inclusion of specific offences like promotion of self-harm and hate speech in law. Calls for alignment of regulatory changes with existing laws.

Highlights that current discussions around the Bill do not fully address how young people actually use the internet, citing examples like Discord and Fortnite. Stresses the importance of allowing children access to supportive online forums while ensuring they can control their exposure to harmful content. Points out a generational gap in parental understanding of digital interactions, advocating for more user-friendly controls that allow users to opt-in rather than opt-out of content recommendations. Emphasises flexibility and future-proofing of legislation to adapt to evolving technologies.

Supports the Bill as it is much-needed legislation against online hate. Proposes an amendment for Ofcom to assess small platforms based on risk rather than size alone, allowing regulatory oversight of high-harm but low-traffic sites such as 8kun and BitChute. Cites examples of antisemitic posts on Gab and raises concerns about voice-activated search engines facilitating access to offensive content.

Welcomes the Bill but seeks further strengthening. Highlights lessons from the Keyham shooting where online radicalisation contributed to the incident, stressing the need for regulation of smaller platforms fostering incel culture. Proposes meeting with Minister to address rescue routes and prevention strategies in communities affected by such issues. Raises concerns about the Instafamous culture and exploitation via platforms like OnlyFans.

Welcomes the Bill for its aim to protect children from harmful content, supporting age verification measures. Expresses concerns about balancing freedom of speech and harmful content definitions. Suggests flagging rather than removal of potentially harmful content to allow users choice in what they see.

Welcomes the Bill for addressing online abuse but raises concerns about free speech protections and regulation of content that is legal but harmful to adults. Advocates for robust free speech protections and calls for a commencement clause to ensure implementation of age verification restrictions on pornographic content.

Supports Zach's law, which addresses harmful online content targeting individuals like Zach Eagling. Emphasises the danger of algorithms that target and amplify harmful content and urges for continued scrutiny and improvement of the Bill as new technologies emerge.

Welcomes the Bill but raises issues around suicide prevention, self-harm content regulation, and body image protection. Calls for extending requirements on smaller platforms and proposes new offences related to serious self-harm.

Congratulates the ministerial team for bringing the Bill to its current stage, recognising the need for platforms to be held accountable and for Ofcom to have oversight powers. Emphasises that protecting children is a top priority given incidents of online harm.

Supports the Bill but expresses concern over definitions of harms being set via secondary legislation rather than primary law. Also seeks reassurance on end-to-end encryption and rules for broadcasting channels like Russia Today.

Acknowledges the positive impact of social media while highlighting its dark side. Supports efforts to regulate social media companies through fines, clear terms and conditions enforcement, and human intervention in algorithms.

Highlights the issue of online ticket fraud, particularly by large-scale touts on resale sites. Urges inclusion of search engines like Google in the requirements to combat fraudulent advertising.

She supports the legislation as it addresses cultural deficits in tech industries, criminalises cyber-flashing, limits anonymous online abuse, and prevents children from accessing pornography. She also calls for future-proofing laws to address rapidly changing methods of causing harm and ensuring victim support is in place.

She points out that Scotland banned cyber-flashing in 2010 with a motivation test, leading to 95% of cases going unpunished. She suggests avoiding this mistake and focusing on consent tests.

He raises concerns about banning online content that is legal offline, the lack of parliamentary scrutiny for defining 'legal but harmful' content, and the limitations on individual recourse against companies removing content under this bill.

He expresses concerns over freedom of speech and the ability to tackle social media abuse, while also inquiring about measures to increase competition and support for small businesses. He seeks reassurances on these issues.

In her intervention, Ms. Abrahams agrees with Mr. Nicolson's concerns about the inadequacy of disinformation provisions in the Bill, citing whistleblower evidence on how disinformation was used during the US Capitol insurrection.

Ms. Brock requested to give way but no specific contribution is provided in the given text.

Supports the need for change and regulation in online spaces. Acknowledges the inadequacies of self-regulation by tech giants. Welcomes some aspects such as duty of care frameworks and an independent regulator (Ofcom). Criticises delays, lack of detail on harmful content definitions, and failure to address disinformation. Expresses concerns over excluding children from digital participation and calls for proper scrutiny on legal but harmful content. Highlights issues related to online abuse against women and girls, including cyber-flashing and misogynistic abuse on Instagram. Raises concerns about arbitrary platform categorisation based on size versus harm, suggesting a risk-based approach instead. Criticises the Bill's lack of future-proofing in rapidly evolving areas such as online gaming and metaverse.

Expresses disappointment that the Bill does not address misinformation and disinformation in political advertising. Cites examples of aggressive campaign groups during Scottish Parliament elections who spent heavily on online ads without revealing their funding sources.

Emphasises that all platforms should be covered regardless of size if they pose a risk to children. Acknowledges concerns raised about small but high-risk platforms and expresses willingness to consider how these can be addressed. Highlights the Bill's aim to stop illegal content from circulating online, protect children from harm, and ensure consistent handling of legal but harmful content by social media firms.

Intervenes to suggest that the Government should bring back amendments based on points made by the Samaritans. Proposes two specific suggestions: one would include smaller platforms within the scope of sanctions, and another would extend protective measures to people over 18.

Intervenes to ask for further clarity on the Minister's stance but does not provide detailed arguments in this excerpt.