Social Media Platforms
(Identity Verification)
(Stroud) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require social media
platforms to offer a user identity verification process to all
users; to require such platforms to offer options to limit or
block interaction with other users who have chosen not to verify
their identity through that process; and for connected
purposes.
It is now normal to be called names like “bitch” and “whore” and
to be called a liar on a daily basis. Young people are sent
indecent graphic images during school lessons. Millions of people
are routinely harassed through their mobile phones. Parents with
dead or dying children are trolled at the most painful time of
their lives. Confusion reigns from disinformation, scams and
fraudulent posts, and we are regularly censoring ourselves to
avoid attacks, pile-ons and rape threats. That cannot continue
unchecked.
I have spoken before about the misery of the dark cyber-streets
and alleyways. Our constituents are looking to us to help clean
up digital Dodge City. While not all abuse is anonymous, the most
frightening threats are from faceless, nameless, cowardly
perpetrators who prevent us from being able to assess the true
risk of a post. This cross-party Bill’s approach not only
provides social media users with more choice and more control
over their online lives but tackles anonymous abuse. By adding
that to the measures proposed in the draft Online Safety Bill and
the Secretary of State’s determination to make what is illegal
offline illegal online, we can create immediate, meaningful
change that will be felt throughout the UK.
I also want to say up front that, despite growing calls to ban
anonymity online, that is not my proposal. I seek three simple
things from social media platforms. First, give all social media
users a choice: the right to verify their identity. Secondly,
give social media users the option to follow or be followed only
by verified accounts. Thirdly, make it clear which accounts are
verified. Our blue ticks work—why should they be available only
to famous people and MPs? The platforms could have already done
that, but they have chosen not to do so. I think it is time that
we legislate in these terms.
We cannot be perceived to ignore the impact of anonymity any
longer. It is a key factor in bullying, harassment and trolling.
When social media users are anonymous, they feel much more able
to behave badly and abuse other users—it is a phenomenon known as
the online disinhibition effect. Partly due to it being much
harder to find and enforce rules against such behaviour,
anonymous trolls do not get traced or banned—they often cannot be
found. If they do get found, it takes them moments to create
fresh accounts with new pseudonyms and continue their trolling or
abuse.
We must also be honest that the ease with which accounts can be
created and used anonymously, or with pseudonyms, is a major
driver of harmful behaviour. We see the spread of disinformation,
conspiracy theories and extremism. Organised disinformation
networks exploit the ability to create fake accounts and false
identities at scale. They use those networks to create false and
misleading content, to spread and amplify that content, and to
distort and disrupt online conversations. Facing facts, the tech
companies do not know who millions of their users are, either. I
understand that Facebook’s own figures estimate that 5% of its
accounts are inauthentic—that is 144 million inauthentic
accounts—and independent estimates range up to 25%.
I have long argued that the issue of anonymity online is a gap
for the Government but not for the public. While the Government’s
consultation omitted to ask questions on the topic, for many
people, online abuse and anonymity go hand in hand. Famous
campaigners such as Katie Price have talked movingly about the
vile abuse that her disabled son Harvey receives. Ashley Cain—the
dad of the late Azaylia Diamond Cain, a baby girl who died from
leukaemia—had me weeping when he described the trolling that he
and her mum received. I am sorry; I get upset.
A brave woman who I met through Instagram called Malin Andersson
told me that when her baby was dying, trolls were telling her to
kill her daughter by taking the tubes out of her face. I am sorry
that I get upset, but I really struggle to say this without
tears.
It is not just celebrities. I went down an awful internet rabbit
hole last night looking at the scores of parents who were trolled
when their children died. Some young Welsh dairy farmers were
sent the most unimaginable messages from anonymous trolls, who
claimed it was their fault that their son died because of their
jobs. The article suggested that the trolls were vegan
extremists, but the family will never know. They will live with
the hate in their head, on top of their pain and grief.
It is therefore not surprising that Opinium polling suggests that
73% of adults
“support…government action to reduce the number of anonymous
accounts”
and online abuse. Three quarters of UK victims online say that
they have experienced abuse or harassment from anonymous
accounts, and one in four people in the UK has been a victim of
some type of online abuse—we can see the levels that we are
dealing with.
Young women and girls are also suffering, so parents want action.
I spoke to the actress and comedian Emily Atack about her awful
experiences. Before she even has her breakfast in the morning,
she is sent multiple pictures of penises by strangers, often
anonymously—a bizarre thing to do, given how ugly they are, but
she is now questioning whether she, rather than those who are
sending the pictures, needs to be the one who changes.
We in this place want to deal with cyber-flashing, but as the Law
Commission states, victims of cyber-flashing
“will often not know the identity of the sender”.
Girlguiding and girls in the Stroud constituency are appealing to
me and my colleagues to make changes to protect them.
Over the past few years, we have all been rightly appalled by the
rise of antisemitism. In 2020, the Antisemitism Policy
Trust identified that nearly 40% of reported
antisemitic abuse online came from fully or
partially anonymous users. The Community Security
Trust notes that
“online platforms…represent an especially convenient,
far-reaching, anonymising and secure-feeling environment for
those who wish to voice and incite hatred.”
It goes on. The stories of black footballers receiving racist
abuse are well known. The incredible Kick It Out has identified
social media as a “battleground of hate” and has said that
everybody needs to do more to tackle the problem. It believes
that we need
“better regulation and enforcement and we need social media
companies to be part of the solution”.
Currently, nobody feels that they are.
I am rightly challenged about my proposals, and I welcome that. I
know that inciting hatred and racist abuse is already a crime:
where an online user is engaged in illegal activity, they can be
identified and prosecuted using existing legislation, namely the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Investigatory
Powers Act 2016, but that takes years. One woman told me that
when an anonymous troll threatened to “bleach” her, which is
properly terrifying, it took a couple of years for him to be
found and then no action was taken.
I look forward to talking to the Minister for Security and
Borders to see whether enforcement of existing laws is the issue,
but I still worry for victims, the police, Ofcom and the courts,
who need to battle with finding the perpetrators before they can
even deal with the abuse. If more people’s details were held via
verification, it would undoubtedly help.
Another important challenge is protecting whistleblowers and
freedom of speech. My proposals will give space for people to
continue using anonymous social media handles. They could still
have an online Twitter handle of @NumberOnePeppaPigFan, although
we may now be able to guess who that is. They could still use
social media to explore their sexuality, whistleblow and reach
out to others without their name on show. In all those
circumstances, they could choose whether or not to verify the
account; freedom of speech and vulnerable individuals would still
be protected. The greatest impediment to freedom of speech,
however, is not verification, but people fearing a rape threat or
a death threat for saying what they think. That is what is
happening right now—so many people are not free online.
I fear that the fantastic Online Safety Bill’s lack of specific
measures to tackle anonymous abuse will, unfortunately, weaken
its credibility before the ink is even dry. Expectations have
already been raised by headlines suggesting that the Bill will
stop all abuse and that there will be multi-million-pound fines
for the social media giants. If the proposals in my Bill were
adopted within the Online Safety Bill, the regulator and social
media platforms would understand from day one that there needs to
be a change in how anonymous abuse is managed. The public would
also experience immediate, tangible changes to their online
experience and take back some control, rather than waiting to see
whether there are more prosecutions and mega-fines.
I thank Stroud constituents, campaigners, organisations, sponsors
of the Bill, peers and parliamentary colleagues for all their
assistance in getting the Bill off the ground. I also thank the
Joint Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for
Folkestone and Hythe () for its pre-legislative
scrutiny work. I know that the team in the Department for
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport really care about the issue.
Working together, I really think that we can bring some light
into the dark cyber-streets and make a true difference.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That , , , , , , , , , and present the Bill.
accordingly presented the
Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18
March, and to be printed (Bill 202).
