Online Safety Bill - Committee Stage, day 8
Transcript
Extracts
Clause 49: “Regulated user-generated content”, “user-generated
content”, “news publisher content”
Amendment 124
Moved by
124: Clause 49, page 47, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2)(e) does not apply in respect of a regulated
user-to-user service which is operated by an organisation
which—(a) is a relevant publisher (within the meaning of section
41 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013), and(b) has an annual UK
turnover in excess of £100 million.”Member’s explanatory
statement
This amendment seeks to ensure the comment sections of the
largest newspaper websites are subject to the Online Safety
Bill’s regulatory regime.
(LD)
...Some of the most harmful online content is in newspaper
comment sections, which are in fact social media forums
themselves and are read by millions of readers every day. Hacked
Off has found examples of misogyny, explicit anti-Semitic
language, Holocaust denial and more. Women in public life are
also the target of misogyny in these comments sections.
...The criteria to qualify as a “recognised news publisher” is
different for broadcasters and other media. For broadcasters,
outlets must be regulated by Ofcom. For non-broadcast media,
outlets need only meet a list of vague criteria: have a standards
code, which could say anything; have a complaints process, which
could also say anything; have a UK office; have staff; and not be
a sanctioned title. As a result, a host of extremist and
disinformation publishing websites may qualify immediately, or
with minor administrative changes, for this rather generous
exemption. For example, conspiracy theorist and racist David
Icke’s website could qualify with minor administrative changes.
He would be free to propagate his dangerous and, in many cases,
anti-Semitic conspiracies on social media. Heritage and Destiny,
an openly racist website, would likewise be able to qualify with
minor changes and spread racial hatred on social media. Infowars
could open up a UK office, qualify and spread harmful content on
social media.
(CB)
...My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendments 124, 126 and 227 to
which my name is attached. I will reserve my comments mostly to
the Bill’s loophole on newspaper comment sections.
These forums would qualify as social media platforms under the
Bill’s definition were it not for a special exemption in Clause
49. They have been found to host some of the most appalling and
despicable content online. I will paraphrase some examples so as
not to subject the Committee to the specific language used, but
they include anti-Semitic slurs in comments appearing under
articles covering a violent attack on a synagogue Holocaust
denial; and speculation that Covid was created and spread by a
secretive global cabal of powerful individuals who control the
world’s leaders like puppets.
