Latest news with #StefanRousseau
Western Telegraph
6 days ago
- Business
- Western Telegraph
Judge us by impact of new online safety measures for children, says regulator
Peter Kyle said he had 'high expectations' for the changes, as the head of the regulator in charge of enforcement against social media platforms which do not comply urged the public to 'judge us by the impact we secure'. While some campaigners have welcomed the new protections – which include age checks to prevent children accessing pornography and other harmful content – others have branded them a 'sticking plaster'. Charities and other organisations working in the sector of children's safety have agreed the key will be ensuring the measures are enforced, urging Ofcom to 'show its teeth'. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said the Government had drawn a line on online protection for children (Stefan Rousseau/PA) The changes also require platforms to ensure algorithms do not work to harm children by, for example, pushing such content on the likes of self harm and eating disorders towards them. Actions which could be taken against firms which fail to adhere to the new codes include fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater, and court orders potentially blocking access in the UK. Mr Kyle has said a generation of children will not be allowed to grow up 'at the mercy of toxic algorithms' as he pledged the Government is laying the foundations for a safer, healthier, more humane online world and warned tech firms 'will be held to account' if they fail to act in line with the changes. Let me just say this to parents and children, you will experience a different internet really, for the first time in from today, moving forward than you've had in the past Peter Kyle, Technology Secretary He told Sky News: 'I have very high expectations of the change that children will experience. 'And let me just say this to parents and children, you will experience a different internet really, for the first time in from today, moving forward than you've had in the past. And that is a big step forward.' The measures, as part of the Online Safety Act and set to be enforced by regulator Ofcom, require online platforms to have age checks – using facial age estimation or credit card checks – if they host pornography or other harmful content such as self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Ofcom chief executive Dame Melanie Dawes said the regulator's research had shown half a million eight to 14-year-olds have come across pornography online in the last month alone. When it was put to her by the BBC that one of their staff members testing out the new measures had been able to sign up to a well-known porn site on Friday using just an email address, she said sites will be 'checking patterns of email use' behind the scenes to verify users are adults. She told Radio 4's Today programme: 'We've shown that we've got teeth and that we're prepared to use them at Ofcom. And we have secured commitments across the porn industry and from the likes of X that no other country has secured. These things can work. 'Judge us by the impact we secure. And absolutely, please do tell us if you think there's something we need to know about that isn't working because the law is very clear now.' She also said the Government is right to be considering limits on the amount of time children can spend on social media apps. I think the Government is right to be opening up this question (of a limit). I think we're all a bit addicted to our phones, adults and children, obviously particularly a concern for young people Dame Melanie Dawes, Ofcom Earlier this week, Mr Kyle said he wanted to tackle 'compulsive behaviour' and ministers are reportedly considering a two-hour limit, with curfews also under discussion. Dame Melanie told LBC: 'I think the Government is right to be opening up this question. I think we're all a bit addicted to our phones, adults and children, obviously particularly a concern for young people. So, I think it's a good thing to be moving on to.' Children's charities the NSPCC and Barnardo's are among those who have welcomed the new checks in place from Friday, as well as the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF). The IWF warned the 'safeguards put in place need to be robust and meaningful' and said there is 'still more to be done', as they urged tech platforms to to build in safeguards rather than having them as 'an afterthought'. Fourteen-year-old Molly Russell's father founded a campaigning organisation in her name (Family handout/PA) The Molly Rose Foundation – set up by bereaved father Ian Russell after his 14-year-old daughter Molly took her own life having viewed harmful content on social media – said there is a 'lack of ambition and accountability' in the measures, and accused the regulator of choosing to 'prioritise the business needs of big tech over children's safety'. Andy Burrows, chief executive of the foundation, told Sky News: 'We've always had a very simple test for the Online Safety Act, will it stop further young people like Molly from dying because of the harmful design of social media platforms? 'And regrettably, we just don't think it passes that test. This is a sticking plaster, not the comprehensive solution that we really need.' Ofcom said it has also launched a monitoring and impact programme focused on some of the platforms where children spend most time including social media sites Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, gaming site Roblox and video clip website YouTube. The sites are among those which have been asked to submit, by August 7, a review of their efforts to assess risks to children and, by September 30, scrutiny of the practical actions they are taking to keep children safe.
Glasgow Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Glasgow Times
Children must not grow up at mercy of toxic algorithms, says tech secretary
Peter Kyle said the Government was laying the foundations for a safer, healthier, more humane online world, as he warned tech firms they 'will be held to account' if they fail to adhere to the measures. The changes, as part of the Online Safety Act and set to be enforced by regulator Ofcom, require online platforms to have age checks in place – using facial age estimation or credit card checks – if they host pornography or other harmful content such as self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said the Government had drawn a line on online protection for children (Stefan Rousseau/PA) They also require platforms to ensure algorithms do not work to harm children by, for example, pushing such content towards them when online. Actions which could be taken against firms which fail to comply with the new codes include fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater, and court orders potentially blocking access in the UK. Campaigners have warned the measures must be enforced strictly, with the NSPCC urging Ofcom to 'show its teeth' if companies fail to make changes in line with the regulator's protection of children codes. But the Molly Rose Foundation – set up by bereaved father Ian Russell after his 14-year-old daughter Molly took her own life having viewed harmful content on social media – said there is a 'lack of ambition and accountability' in the measures, and accused the regulator of choosing to 'prioritise the business needs of big tech over children's safety'. Mr Kyle insisted the Government has 'drawn a line in the sand' and that the codes will bring real change. He said: 'This Government has taken one of the boldest steps anywhere in the world to reclaim the digital space for young people – to lay the foundations for a safer, healthier, more humane place online. 'We cannot – and will not – allow a generation of children to grow up at the mercy of toxic algorithms, pushed to see harmful content they would never be exposed to offline. This is not the internet we want for our children, nor the future we are willing to accept.' He said the time for tech platforms 'to look the other way is over', calling on them to 'act now to protect our children, follow the law, and play their part in creating a better digital world'. He warned: 'And let me be clear: if they fail to do so, they will be held to account. I will not hesitate to go further and legislate to ensure that no child is left unprotected.' Ofcom chief executive Dame Melanie Dawes has previously defended criticism of the reforms, insisting that tech firms are not being given much power over the new measures, which will apply across the UK. Dame Melanie said: 'Prioritising clicks and engagement over children's online safety will no longer be tolerated in the UK. 'Our message to tech firms is clear – comply with age checks and other protection measures set out in our codes, or face the consequences of enforcement action from Ofcom.' The regulator said X, formerly Twitter, and others including Bluesky, Reddit and dating app Grindr are among those to have committed to age assurances, and described its safety codes as demanding that algorithms 'must be tamed and configured for children so that the most harmful material is blocked'. It said it has launched a monitoring and impact programme focused on some of the platforms where children spend most time including social media sites Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, gaming site Roblox and video clip website YouTube. The sites are among those which have been asked to submit, by August 7, a review of their efforts to assess risks to children and, by September 30, scrutiny of the practical actions they are taking to keep children safe. Chris Sherwood, chief executive at the NSPCC, said: 'Children, and their parents, must not solely bear the responsibility of keeping themselves safe online. It's high time for tech companies to step up.' He said if enforcement is 'strong', the codes should offer a 'vital layer of protection' for children and young people when they go online, adding: 'If tech companies fail to comply, Ofcom must show its teeth and fully enforce the new codes'. Echoing this, Barnardo's children's charity said the changes are 'an important stepping stone' but 'must be robustly enforced'. England's Children's Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, said Friday 'marks a new era of change in how children can be protected online, with tech companies now needing to identify and tackle the risks to children on their platforms or face consequences', and said the measures must keep pace with emerging technology to make them effective in the future. But Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, said: 'This should be a watershed moment for young people but instead we've been let down by a regulator that has chosen to prioritise the business needs of big tech over children's safety.' He said the 'lack of ambition and accountability will have been heard loud and clear in Silicon Valley'. He added: 'We now need a clear reset and leadership from the Prime Minister. That means nothing less than a new Online Safety Act that fixes this broken regime and firmly puts the balance back in favour of children.' Earlier this week, Mr Kyle said children could face a limit on using social media apps to help them 'take control of their online lives'. He said he wanted to tackle 'compulsive behaviour' and ministers are reportedly considering a two-hour limit, with curfews also under discussion. The Cabinet minister said he would be making an announcement about his plans for under-16s 'in the near future'.
Western Telegraph
6 days ago
- Politics
- Western Telegraph
Children must not grow up at mercy of toxic algorithms, says tech secretary
Peter Kyle said the Government was laying the foundations for a safer, healthier, more humane online world, as he warned tech firms they 'will be held to account' if they fail to adhere to the measures. The changes, as part of the Online Safety Act and set to be enforced by regulator Ofcom, require online platforms to have age checks in place – using facial age estimation or credit card checks – if they host pornography or other harmful content such as self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said the Government had drawn a line on online protection for children (Stefan Rousseau/PA) They also require platforms to ensure algorithms do not work to harm children by, for example, pushing such content towards them when online. Actions which could be taken against firms which fail to comply with the new codes include fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater, and court orders potentially blocking access in the UK. Campaigners have warned the measures must be enforced strictly, with the NSPCC urging Ofcom to 'show its teeth' if companies fail to make changes in line with the regulator's protection of children codes. But the Molly Rose Foundation – set up by bereaved father Ian Russell after his 14-year-old daughter Molly took her own life having viewed harmful content on social media – said there is a 'lack of ambition and accountability' in the measures, and accused the regulator of choosing to 'prioritise the business needs of big tech over children's safety'. Mr Kyle insisted the Government has 'drawn a line in the sand' and that the codes will bring real change. He said: 'This Government has taken one of the boldest steps anywhere in the world to reclaim the digital space for young people – to lay the foundations for a safer, healthier, more humane place online. 'We cannot – and will not – allow a generation of children to grow up at the mercy of toxic algorithms, pushed to see harmful content they would never be exposed to offline. This is not the internet we want for our children, nor the future we are willing to accept.' He said the time for tech platforms 'to look the other way is over', calling on them to 'act now to protect our children, follow the law, and play their part in creating a better digital world'. He warned: 'And let me be clear: if they fail to do so, they will be held to account. I will not hesitate to go further and legislate to ensure that no child is left unprotected.' Ofcom chief executive Dame Melanie Dawes has previously defended criticism of the reforms, insisting that tech firms are not being given much power over the new measures, which will apply across the UK. Dame Melanie said: 'Prioritising clicks and engagement over children's online safety will no longer be tolerated in the UK. 'Our message to tech firms is clear – comply with age checks and other protection measures set out in our codes, or face the consequences of enforcement action from Ofcom.' The regulator said X, formerly Twitter, and others including Bluesky, Reddit and dating app Grindr are among those to have committed to age assurances, and described its safety codes as demanding that algorithms 'must be tamed and configured for children so that the most harmful material is blocked'. It said it has launched a monitoring and impact programme focused on some of the platforms where children spend most time including social media sites Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, gaming site Roblox and video clip website YouTube. The sites are among those which have been asked to submit, by August 7, a review of their efforts to assess risks to children and, by September 30, scrutiny of the practical actions they are taking to keep children safe. Chris Sherwood, chief executive at the NSPCC, said: 'Children, and their parents, must not solely bear the responsibility of keeping themselves safe online. It's high time for tech companies to step up.' He said if enforcement is 'strong', the codes should offer a 'vital layer of protection' for children and young people when they go online, adding: 'If tech companies fail to comply, Ofcom must show its teeth and fully enforce the new codes'. Echoing this, Barnardo's children's charity said the changes are 'an important stepping stone' but 'must be robustly enforced'. England's Children's Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, said Friday 'marks a new era of change in how children can be protected online, with tech companies now needing to identify and tackle the risks to children on their platforms or face consequences', and said the measures must keep pace with emerging technology to make them effective in the future. But Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, said: 'This should be a watershed moment for young people but instead we've been let down by a regulator that has chosen to prioritise the business needs of big tech over children's safety.' He said the 'lack of ambition and accountability will have been heard loud and clear in Silicon Valley'. He added: 'We now need a clear reset and leadership from the Prime Minister. That means nothing less than a new Online Safety Act that fixes this broken regime and firmly puts the balance back in favour of children.' Earlier this week, Mr Kyle said children could face a limit on using social media apps to help them 'take control of their online lives'. He said he wanted to tackle 'compulsive behaviour' and ministers are reportedly considering a two-hour limit, with curfews also under discussion. The Cabinet minister said he would be making an announcement about his plans for under-16s 'in the near future'.
The Herald Scotland
6 days ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Children must not grow up at mercy of toxic algorithms, says tech secretary
The changes, as part of the Online Safety Act and set to be enforced by regulator Ofcom, require online platforms to have age checks in place – using facial age estimation or credit card checks – if they host pornography or other harmful content such as self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said the Government had drawn a line on online protection for children (Stefan Rousseau/PA) They also require platforms to ensure algorithms do not work to harm children by, for example, pushing such content towards them when online. Actions which could be taken against firms which fail to comply with the new codes include fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater, and court orders potentially blocking access in the UK. Campaigners have warned the measures must be enforced strictly, with the NSPCC urging Ofcom to 'show its teeth' if companies fail to make changes in line with the regulator's protection of children codes. But the Molly Rose Foundation – set up by bereaved father Ian Russell after his 14-year-old daughter Molly took her own life having viewed harmful content on social media – said there is a 'lack of ambition and accountability' in the measures, and accused the regulator of choosing to 'prioritise the business needs of big tech over children's safety'. Mr Kyle insisted the Government has 'drawn a line in the sand' and that the codes will bring real change. He said: 'This Government has taken one of the boldest steps anywhere in the world to reclaim the digital space for young people – to lay the foundations for a safer, healthier, more humane place online. 'We cannot – and will not – allow a generation of children to grow up at the mercy of toxic algorithms, pushed to see harmful content they would never be exposed to offline. This is not the internet we want for our children, nor the future we are willing to accept.' He said the time for tech platforms 'to look the other way is over', calling on them to 'act now to protect our children, follow the law, and play their part in creating a better digital world'. He warned: 'And let me be clear: if they fail to do so, they will be held to account. I will not hesitate to go further and legislate to ensure that no child is left unprotected.' Ofcom chief executive Dame Melanie Dawes has previously defended criticism of the reforms, insisting that tech firms are not being given much power over the new measures, which will apply across the UK. Dame Melanie said: 'Prioritising clicks and engagement over children's online safety will no longer be tolerated in the UK. 'Our message to tech firms is clear – comply with age checks and other protection measures set out in our codes, or face the consequences of enforcement action from Ofcom.' The regulator said X, formerly Twitter, and others including Bluesky, Reddit and dating app Grindr are among those to have committed to age assurances, and described its safety codes as demanding that algorithms 'must be tamed and configured for children so that the most harmful material is blocked'. It said it has launched a monitoring and impact programme focused on some of the platforms where children spend most time including social media sites Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, gaming site Roblox and video clip website YouTube. The sites are among those which have been asked to submit, by August 7, a review of their efforts to assess risks to children and, by September 30, scrutiny of the practical actions they are taking to keep children safe. Chris Sherwood, chief executive at the NSPCC, said: 'Children, and their parents, must not solely bear the responsibility of keeping themselves safe online. It's high time for tech companies to step up.' He said if enforcement is 'strong', the codes should offer a 'vital layer of protection' for children and young people when they go online, adding: 'If tech companies fail to comply, Ofcom must show its teeth and fully enforce the new codes'. Echoing this, Barnardo's children's charity said the changes are 'an important stepping stone' but 'must be robustly enforced'. England's Children's Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, said Friday 'marks a new era of change in how children can be protected online, with tech companies now needing to identify and tackle the risks to children on their platforms or face consequences', and said the measures must keep pace with emerging technology to make them effective in the future. But Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, said: 'This should be a watershed moment for young people but instead we've been let down by a regulator that has chosen to prioritise the business needs of big tech over children's safety.' He said the 'lack of ambition and accountability will have been heard loud and clear in Silicon Valley'. He added: 'We now need a clear reset and leadership from the Prime Minister. That means nothing less than a new Online Safety Act that fixes this broken regime and firmly puts the balance back in favour of children.' Earlier this week, Mr Kyle said children could face a limit on using social media apps to help them 'take control of their online lives'. He said he wanted to tackle 'compulsive behaviour' and ministers are reportedly considering a two-hour limit, with curfews also under discussion. The Cabinet minister said he would be making an announcement about his plans for under-16s 'in the near future'.
New Statesman
22-07-2025
- Business
- New Statesman
The economic cure for populism
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/Getty If there is one theme that has featured most heavily in these columns over the last four years, it has been the dangers of right-wing populism. The destructiveness of Brexit, the dishonesty of Boris Johnson, the recklessness of Liz Truss, and the authoritarianism of Donald Trump have all been familiar themes. It has to be said, however, that populism seems to be surviving my weekly onslaught. Reform UK leads in the opinion polls. The Conservative Party is led by someone who is half-tempted to turn her party into a fully-fledged populist party and who will likely soon be replaced by someone who will not hesitate in turning his party into a fully-fledged populist party. To the extent that President Trump is running into political difficulties, it is for being insufficiently committed to isolationism and conspiracy theories. The public is angry, dissatisfied with the status quo. There is a market for politicians who can articulate that anger, identity something to blame, and promise simple answers to complex problems. And it cannot be a coincidence that the rise of this type of politics has occurred during a period of economic stagnation. There is much more to populism than this; it is at least as much a cultural phenomenon as an economic one. But it is also surely the case that the attraction of populism in the UK would diminish if, by the time we got to the next general election, living standards were rising and expected to continue to rise. It is, therefore, an option for the Government to focus relentlessly on delivering economic growth as a means of achieving re-election (not to mention the more than incidental benefits to the country). Of course, many factors determine economic growth. Some of them can only be delivered in the long term; some – such as Trump's obsession with tariffs – are largely beyond the Government's control; some come at a very high political cost. Let us, for a moment, assume that the Government is willing to risk these high political costs to deliver higher economic growth. What could it do? Before making a few suggestions, what is not an option is an expanded borrow-to-invest strategy. Our current fiscal rules are already loose, in part to fund higher levels of capital spending. That is no bad thing, but remarkably little of that higher capital spending is going into the most economically beneficial areas, like transport or scientific research. The markets are already nervous about our fiscal sustainability and we have the third-highest debt interest costs of any developed country. If the interest rates on our government debt were at the same levels as Germany, we would be paying £50bn a year less than we do. Rather than borrowing more, a credible plan for fiscal credibility is necessary to get those costs down. Contrary to the fashionable view that austerity is bad for growth, it is the loss of control of the public finances that is the real danger. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This does mean reducing the costs of government both in the short term (the disability benefit bill cannot be allowed to grow at the current rate) and in the long run. For a start, a plan should be announced to get us off the pensions triple lock. Even with spending control, taxes will have to go up. The challenge is that the least unpopular taxes are the most economically damaging. Focusing on the rich goes down well with most of the public but drives away the mobile wealthy. At least a partial retreat on non-doms is necessary, and the idea of a wealth tax should be dismissed. If we need more revenue (and we do), use the main taxes for a broad-based increase. The Government has made some progress on planning but even on this has recently retreated on environmental requirements. The real benefits of planning reform come from increasing the population of the highly productive parts of the country. This requires a substantial expansion of housebuilding in London (where next to no houses are being built) and the Ox-Cam corridor (where we should be massively ambitious), with spending on transport infrastructure focused there too. Ignore the complaints about the Treasury Green Book; we should invest where we get the best return. Economic growth should be prioritised ahead of reducing regional inequality. And while I am being provocatively right wing (at least for a New Statesman column), we should also drop the onerous tax we place on developers that reduces housebuilding, namely the requirement to build large numbers of affordable homes. Just build more homes. Planning is one area where regulations have become too onerous. Rachel Reeves was right to highlight in her Mansion House speech last week that excessive regulation is stifling growth. Her rhetoric needs to be matched by implementation – including in the context of employment rights. Returning to centrist dad mode, what about Brexit? Reduced access to our biggest trading market has proven to be a substantial drag anchor on our economy, predictably enough. The bolder and more ambitious the plans to restore a sensible relationship with the EU, the better. The economic gains will be worth upsetting a vociferous but shrinking minority. Taken together, it would be an agenda that maximises our chances of delivery economic growth and, in the long term, defeating populism. Is it an agenda that a government, especially this Government, could deliver politically? Probably not. It reminds me that, as I conclude the last of these regular New Statesman columns, that it is a lot easier to write about politics than to be a practising politician. [See also: Why is Boris Johnson so scared of Emmanuel Macron?] Related
