Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Online Harms: Social Media

Monday 13 July 2020 · 1 question

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 1 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Tan Dhesi questions the delay in implementing proper protection measures for online harms since the publication of the White Paper over a year ago.
  • The Government's White Paper aims to address the online world with world-leading ambitions to tackle online harms.
  • The Home Office asserts that illegal activities offline are equally illegal online, guiding their work on tackling online harms including child sexual exploitation.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Context

The Government's online harms White Paper was published over a year ago with ambitions to address illegal content and disinformation. There have been delays in implementing the paper, leading to concerns about its efficacy.

Question

Tan Dhesi questions why there has been no proper protection put into place despite the publication of the White Paper over a year ago. He highlights delays, potential watering down of sanctions, and continued lobbying by tech giants, all while harmful content remains unaddressed on social media platforms. He asks for an update on conversations with these companies and when the online harms Bill will be published.

Answer from Victoria Atkins

The Government's White Paper was world-leading in its ambitions to address the online world. The Home Office is clear that illegal activities offline are also illegal online, and this principle guides their work on tackling online harms including child sexual exploitation. A full Government response to the consultation will be published in autumn.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The timeline for publishing the Bill was not specified beyond a commitment to publish a response in autumn.

How: Redirecting Focus Towards The Ambition Of The White Paper, Downplaying Delays

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email