Key Facts

• Amendment 98 was proposed to clause 11, page 10, line 17.
• It requires services to mitigate harm caused by habit-forming features for children.
• Examples include TikTok and Facebook encouraging prolonged engagement through algorithms.
• Clause 11 covers safety duties to protect children.
• A third of children have false social media accounts aged over 18, according to Ofocm's research.
• Labour has been working with the Government to ensure the legislation gets passed but remains concerned about prioritizing financial interests over child safety.
• The Online Safety Bill aims to protect young people from harmful content and behaviour.
• Providers must use age verification and assurance technologies to prevent child access to high-risk services.
• Amendment 1 clarifies the need for age assurance in clause 11 to manage risks of harm to children.
• Age verification ensures hard access to services, while age assurance confirms ongoing identity match.
• The Bill aims to protect children from inappropriate content by implementing robust age-verification systems.
• OnlyFans and other subscription-based platforms must maintain age-verification systems as part of the legislation.
• Amendment 96 aims to include reducing or removing access to private messaging features.
• Amendment 97 aims to include reducing or removing access to livestreaming features.
• Clause 11(4)(d) currently allows blocking users from accessing the service or particular content but does not explicitly cover feature-based restrictions.
• Kirsty Blackman suggests adding another layer to the clause in the Online Safety Bill.
• The proposal is aimed at protecting victims and reducing harmful content through targeted access restrictions.
• There has been a significant increase in self-generated child sexual abuse images from livestreaming features.
• Amendment 99 requires service providers to have tools available to block access to parts of their services if proportionate.
• Amendments 96 and 97 aim to bring private messaging and livestreaming features within the scope of regulation.
• Clause 11(4) sets out examples of areas in which providers will need to take measures to protect children from harm.
• The amendment focuses on clause 11, page 11, line 9.
• Amendment 4 requires providers to include details about access prevention measures in their terms of service and apply them consistently.
• Amendment 100 aims to ensure the provisions are clear and accessible for child users.
• Amendments 4 and 5 aim to strengthen requirements for providers regarding child safety.
• Ofcom will produce codes of practice setting out how providers can meet their duties.
• The amendment tabled by Kirsty Blackman is not accepted due to potential unintended consequences.
• Roger Gale is addressing several clauses including Clause 12, Clause 13, and Clause 55.
• The discussion includes government amendments numbered 18, 23 to 25, 32, 33, 39, 42 to 45, 61 to 66, 68 to 70, 74, 80, 85, 92, 51 and 52, 54, 94 and 60.
• The clauses and amendments relate to adult risk assessment duties and clear terms of service for children.
• The statement addresses the removal of so-called 'legal but harmful' duties outlined in clauses 12 and 13.
• Clause 55 defines 'content that is harmful to adults.'
• New clauses 3 and 4 aim to improve transparency and accountability for platforms.
• Clause 12 outlines companies’ duties in keeping adults safe online.
• Amendments aim to remove transparency obligation, making it impossible to understand problems on these platforms.
• Labour supports more transparency and protection for adults from legal but harmful content.
• The Government has removed the concept of 'legal but harmful' from the Bill.
• Stakeholders are concerned that platforms might shorten their terms of service to avoid liability for harmful content.
• There is no minimum requirement in the regime for companies to set terms of service for adults, reflecting risks on services.
• The Bill allows platforms to consider legal but harmful content through risk assessments.
• Platforms do not have a requirement to remove legal speech outright.
• Concerns raised over the message this sends to the public and its implications for online safety.
• The term 'legal but harmful' does not exist in the Bill.
• The Bill now includes a comprehensive list of priority illegal offences.
• Platforms must conduct risk assessments for these offences.
• New offences such as promoting self-harm, suicide, cyber-flashing, and Zach’s law are included.
• Clauses 12 and 13 are seen as wrecking amendments by the Government.
• Subsections (5)(d) to (f) in clause 12 ask platforms to consider different ways adults experience harm online.
• Holocaust denial is cited as an example of lawful but awful content that curtails free speech for Jewish people.
• The Online Safety Bill originally covered provisions related to 'legal but harmful' content.
• Clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill addressed risk assessments for functionalities that facilitate the presence or dissemination of priority content harmful to adults.
• Health-related disinformation online has led to real-world harm, such as Piers Corbyn threatening hon. Members with hanging outside Parliament.
• People dealing with cancer have been discouraged from accessing proper medical interventions due to misinformation online.