The Online Safety Bill (OSB) is one of the most controversial
pieces of legislation produced by Government in recent years.
A new briefing paper from
the Centre for Policy Studies outlines why it is likely to do far
more harm than good in its current form, and should either be
scrapped or seriously amended.
The report, ‘A Censor’s Charter?’, shows
how the OSB incentivises firms to remove perfectly legal content
from their platforms. Firms fearing huge fines of up to 10% of
global revenue will become far more cautious about the content on
their sites. This risks limiting free speech and creating a
digital culture of embracing false positives at the price of
compliance.
The report also shows that the countervailing protections on
journalistic content and content of democratic importance will do
little to prevent this, not least because they fail to reflect
the reality of how people use social media.
The report – the first by Matthew Feeney, the think tank’s new
Head of Tech and Innovation – argues that the Bill is a
principled attempt to curb the spread of various online horrors.
But MPs who have faced personal online abuse do not realise that
this Bill is more likely to restrict their own speech than
protect them from further harassment.
The report also warns of the social and economic consequences of
introducing specific regulation around encrypted messaging
services, and of the significant cost to online businesses. It
argues that while the Bill is aimed at the tech giants, the
wording of the legislation means that it would affect companies
far across the tech ecosystem, stifling innovation and
investment.
Matthew Feeney, report author and CPS Head of Tech &
Innovation, said:
‘Rather than taking a stand for freedom of expression, this Bill
would not only empower politicians across the spectrum to stifle
expression but also damage innovation and growth in the
technology sector. The cure is very much worse than the disease.’
Robert Colvile, CPS Director, said:
‘The CPS’s previous paper on this topic, ‘Safety Without Censorship’,
argued that it was both dangerous and wrong for online and
offline speech to subject to separate legal regimes – in
particular via the creation of a nebulous category of ‘legal but
harmful’ speech. Sadly, since then the Bill has got worse rather
than better. We urge the Government to change course.’
Notes to Editors:
- ‘A Censor’s Charter?’ by Matthew Feeney can be
downloaded here
- Matthew Feeney is the CPS’s new Head of Tech &
Innovation, having previously run the Cato Institute’s Project on
Emerging Technologies.
