Latest news with #harmfulcontent
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Social media battles and barbs on both sides of Atlantic over UK Online Safety Act
The UK's Online Safety Act has been greatly anticipated. Amid mounting concerns about the ease of accessing harmful content online, rules were drawn up to force social platforms to protect children from posts and videos that incite hatred or encourage suicide, self-harm or eating disorders. But within days of coming into force, the new approach to keeping children safe online had become a rallying point for the right in both Britain and the US. Last week Nigel Farage, leader of the populist Reform UK party, was embroiled in a furious row with a Labour government minister after pledging to repeal the legislation. Meanwhile Republicans held meetings with UK politicians and the communications regulator, Ofcom. The impact of the new law is also being keenly watched in Australia, which is preparing to ban under-16s from social media. Experts say the inherent tensions in the act – between taking down harmful content swiftly and preserving free speech – are likely to bubble away. Zia Yusuf, a senior Reform figure, said: 'So much of the act is massive overreach and plunges this country into a borderline dystopian state.' In response to Reform UK's criticism of the law, Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, said: 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Kyle was referring to provisions in the act that seek to prevent children being groomed via messaging apps. Farage said the technology secretary's words were 'disgusting' and demanded an apology, which was not forthcoming. 'To say that I would do anything that would in any way aid and abet people like Jimmy Savile, it's so below the belt,' Farage added. It is not only the British right that is protesting against the act. JD Vance, the US vice-president, said free speech in the UK is 'in retreat'. Last week, Jim Jordan, a Republican congressman who has criticised the act, led a delegation of US politicians to discuss the legislation with Kyle and Ofcom. Jordan called the act the 'UK's online censorship law' and accused Ofcom, which is implementing the legislation, of 'targeting' and 'harassing' US companies. The group of Republican and Democrat politicians also visited Brussels to discuss the Online Safety Act's EU equivalent, the Digital Services Act. Another Republican politician in the delegation, Scott Fitzgerald, said he thought the White House would certainly be 'interested in finding out' what the group discovered. The Trump administration's concerns have extended to threatening Ofcom and EU staff with a visa ban. In May the state department announced it will block entry to the US to 'foreign nationals who censor Americans'. Ofcom has said it is seeking 'clarity' on the planned visa restrictions. Concerns over free speech also intersect with economic interest. The major tech platforms that come under the aegis of the act – Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat and X – are all based in the US. Companies can be fined up to £18m or 10% of global turnover for breaches, or whichever is greater. In the case of Meta, the parent of Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, such a fine would equate to $16bn (£11bn). On Friday, the social media platform X, owned by self-professed free speech advocate Elon Musk, issued a statement condemning enforcement of the act, saying the legislation was at risk of 'seriously infringing' free speech. There are also signs of a popular backlash in the UK. A petition calling for the repeal of the act has accumulated more than 480,000 signatures – which means it will be considered for a debate in parliament – and has been posted on social media by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson. Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, doubts nonetheless whether freedom of speech is a vote-winner. 'Petition or no petition, it's not a big issue for most people. Clearly for the extremely online – whether on the right or left – it's an issue, but it's not going to sway a large number of votes with the majority of the population.' Three in four UK parents are concerned about what their children are seeing, hearing or doing online, according to a recent Ipsos Mori poll. Beeban Kidron, a UK peer and leading campaigner on online child safety, told the Guardian she was 'happy to take Nigel Farage and his colleagues through the act'. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'If companies target kids, algorithmically or otherwise, why would Reform put the kids at the mercy of tech bros?' The new under-18 guidelines in the UK, which kicked off the latest row, require age-gating of pornography sites to prevent children from gaining access. But they also require platforms to prevent children from accessing content that encourages suicide, self-harm and eating disorders, as well as suppressing the spread of material that is abusive or incites hatred, or promotes harmful substances and dangerous challenges. Some content has been age-gated to avoid being classified as breaching those regulations. In the Daily Telegraph, Farage claimed that footage of an anti-migrant protest had been 'censored', as well as an attempt at 'exposing the truth' about the Rotherham grooming gangs scandal. These examples were on X and included a speech by a Conservative MP, Katie Lam, on the UK's child grooming scandal. The content was covered by a notice stating that 'due to local laws, we are temporarily restricting access to this content until X estimates your age'. The Guardian found no way to access an age-verification service on X, indicating that for now the platform's policy is to default many users to a child-appropriate service until age checks are fully up and running. X has been approached for comment on the age-checks. On Reddit, forums about alcohol abuse, pet care and the Al Jazeera broadcast network also ask for age checks before accessing them. A Reddit spokesperson confirmed the age-checking was because of the Online Safety Act and its restrictions on content that is illegal or harmful to under-18s. Big Brother Watch, a civil liberties and privacy campaign group, said the Reddit and X examples showed the new law was already over-regulating. An Ofcom spokesperson said the act required tech companies to prevent children from seeing content harmful to them as well as tackling criminal content, while protecting free speech. 'There is no requirement on them to restrict legal content for adult users.' Mark Jones, a partner at the London law firm Payne Hicks Beach, said there was a risk that in exercising their duty to remove illegal content or material that was harmful to children, social media companies may be overly cautious and remove perfectly legal material in the UK. He added that rows over how content was treated by Ofcom were likely to run and run because of the tension between speedily tackling harmful content and letting free speech reign. 'Quick decisions are needed in order to prevent the spread of harmful or illegal content. And with that need for speed comes a risk that a decision made under time pressure may be incorrect. But that is the reality of the situation. Mistakes will be made – albeit from a position of trying to prevent harm,' he said. Last week's row over the Online Safety Act will not be the last.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Social media battles and barbs on both sides of Atlantic over UK Online Safety Act
The UK's Online Safety Act has been greatly anticipated. Amid mounting concerns about the ease of accessing harmful content online, rules were drawn up to force social platforms to protect children from posts and videos that incite hatred or encourage suicide, self-harm or eating disorders. But within days of coming into force, the new approach to keeping children safe online had become a rallying point for the right in both Britain and the US. Last week Nigel Farage, leader of the populist Reform UK party, was embroiled in a furious row with a Labour government minister after pledging to repeal the legislation. Meanwhile Republicans held meetings with UK politicians and the communications regulator, Ofcom. The impact of the new law is also being keenly watched in Australia, which is preparing to ban under-16s from social media. Experts say the inherent tensions in the act – between taking down harmful content swiftly and preserving free speech – are likely to bubble away. Zia Yusuf, a senior Reform figure, said: 'So much of the act is massive overreach and plunges this country into a borderline dystopian state.' In response to Reform UK's criticism of the law, Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, said: 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Kyle was referring to provisions in the act that seek to prevent children being groomed via messaging apps. Farage said the technology secretary's words were 'disgusting' and demanded an apology, which was not forthcoming. 'To say that I would do anything that would in any way aid and abet people like Jimmy Savile, it's so below the belt,' Farage added. It is not only the British right that is protesting against the act. JD Vance, the US vice-president, said free speech in the UK is 'in retreat'. Last week, Jim Jordan, a Republican congressman who has criticised the act, led a delegation of US politicians to discuss the legislation with Kyle and Ofcom. Jordan called the act the 'UK's online censorship law' and accused Ofcom, which is implementing the legislation, of 'targeting' and 'harassing' US companies. The group of Republican and Democrat politicians also visited Brussels to discuss the Online Safety Act's EU equivalent, the Digital Services Act. Another Republican politician in the delegation, Scott Fitzgerald, said he thought the White House would certainly be 'interested in finding out' what the group discovered. The Trump administration's concerns have extended to threatening Ofcom and EU staff with a visa ban. In May the state department announced it will block entry to the US to 'foreign nationals who censor Americans'. Ofcom has said it is seeking 'clarity' on the planned visa restrictions. Concerns over free speech also intersect with economic interest. The major tech platforms that come under the aegis of the act – Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat and X – are all based in the US. Companies can be fined up to £18m or 10% of global turnover for breaches, or whichever is greater. In the case of Meta, the parent of Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, such a fine would equate to $16bn (£11bn). On Friday, the social media platform X, owned by self-professed free speech advocate Elon Musk, issued a statement condemning enforcement of the act, saying the legislation was at risk of 'seriously infringing' free speech. There are also signs of a popular backlash in the UK. A petition calling for the repeal of the act has accumulated more than 480,000 signatures – which means it will be considered for a debate in parliament – and has been posted on social media by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson. Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, doubts nonetheless whether freedom of speech is a vote-winner. 'Petition or no petition, it's not a big issue for most people. Clearly for the extremely online – whether on the right or left – it's an issue, but it's not going to sway a large number of votes with the majority of the population.' Three in four UK parents are concerned about what their children are seeing, hearing or doing online, according to a recent Ipsos Mori poll. Beeban Kidron, a UK peer and leading campaigner on online child safety, told the Guardian she was 'happy to take Nigel Farage and his colleagues through the act'. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'If companies target kids, algorithmically or otherwise, why would Reform put the kids at the mercy of tech bros?' The new under-18 guidelines in the UK, which kicked off the latest row, require age-gating of pornography sites to prevent children from gaining access. But they also require platforms to prevent children from accessing content that encourages suicide, self-harm and eating disorders, as well as suppressing the spread of material that is abusive or incites hatred, or promotes harmful substances and dangerous challenges. Some content has been age-gated to avoid being classified as breaching those regulations. In the Daily Telegraph, Farage claimed that footage of an anti-migrant protest had been 'censored', as well as an attempt at 'exposing the truth' about the Rotherham grooming gangs scandal. These examples were on X and included a speech by a Conservative MP, Katie Lam, on the UK's child grooming scandal. The content was covered by a notice stating that 'due to local laws, we are temporarily restricting access to this content until X estimates your age'. The Guardian found no way to access an age-verification service on X, indicating that for now the platform's policy is to default many users to a child-appropriate service until age checks are fully up and running. X has been approached for comment on the age-checks. On Reddit, forums about alcohol abuse, pet care and the Al Jazeera broadcast network also ask for age checks before accessing them. A Reddit spokesperson confirmed the age-checking was because of the Online Safety Act and its restrictions on content that is illegal or harmful to under-18s. Big Brother Watch, a civil liberties and privacy campaign group, said the Reddit and X examples showed the new law was already over-regulating. An Ofcom spokesperson said the act required tech companies to prevent children from seeing content harmful to them as well as tackling criminal content, while protecting free speech. 'There is no requirement on them to restrict legal content for adult users.' Mark Jones, a partner at the London law firm Payne Hicks Beach, said there was a risk that in exercising their duty to remove illegal content or material that was harmful to children, social media companies may be overly cautious and remove perfectly legal material in the UK. He added that rows over how content was treated by Ofcom were likely to run and run because of the tension between speedily tackling harmful content and letting free speech reign. 'Quick decisions are needed in order to prevent the spread of harmful or illegal content. And with that need for speed comes a risk that a decision made under time pressure may be incorrect. But that is the reality of the situation. Mistakes will be made – albeit from a position of trying to prevent harm,' he said. Last week's row over the Online Safety Act will not be the last.
The Independent
30-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
What the Australian under-16 YouTube ban means
Australia has announced it will include YouTube in its ban on social media access for teenagers, reversing an earlier exemption. The ban, set to commence in December, aims to protect minors from harmful content and algorithm-driven exposure, following a survey indicating high rates of harmful content on YouTube. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese affirmed the government 's commitment to child safety online, stating they would not be swayed by threats from social media companies. YouTube maintains it is a video-sharing platform, not social media, and has urged the Australian government to reconsider its decision. The move reflects increasing concerns over AI-driven misinformation and the unchecked power of large technology firms, with the Federal Communications Minister vowing not to be intimidated by legal challenges.
Yahoo
30-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Australia adds YouTube to platforms covered by world-first ban on social media for teenagers
Australia announced on Wednesday that it would include YouTube in its ban on social media access for teenagers, reversing an earlier decision to exempt the Alphabet-owned video-sharing platform. The reversal could trigger a legal challenge. The ban, set to take effect in December, seeks to protect minors from harmful content and algorithm-driven exposure. The latest decision came after the internet regulator asked the government last month to overturn the YouTube carve-out, citing a survey that found 37 per cent of minors reported harmful content on the site, the worst showing for a social media platform. The prime minister said his government was standing with parents and prioritising child safety online. 'I am calling time on it,' Anthony Albanese said, stating that Australian children were being negatively affected by social media platforms. 'I want Australian parents to know that we have their backs.' While YouTube claims it's a video sharing platform, critics argue it functions similarly to banned apps like Instagram and TikTok. 'Our position remains clear: YouTube is a video sharing platform with a library of free, high-quality content, increasingly viewed on TV screens. It's not social media,' a YouTube spokesperson said by email. 'We have written directly to the government, urging them to uphold the integrity of the legislative process and protect the age-appropriate experiences and safeguards we provide for young Australians.' Other social media platforms had criticised the earlier decision to exempt YouTube from the ban, arguing that it functioned similarly to them by promoting user interaction and algorithm-based content. TikTok had described it as a 'sweetheart deal'. Although YouTube will now be included in the ban for users under 16, parents and teachers can still show videos to minors. The decision to include YouTube in the under-16 social media ban reflects growing concern over AI-driven misinformation and big tech's influence, according to cybersecurity expert Adam Marre. 'The Australian government's move to regulate YouTube is an important step in pushing back against the unchecked power of big tech and protecting kids,' he told Reuters. Mr Albanese had earlier asserted that the policy would be made independently of any corporate threats. 'The minister will make these assessments,' he told ABC TV on Sunday, 'independent of any of these threats that're made by the social media companies. I say to them that social media has a social responsibility. There's no doubt that young people are being impacted adversely in their mental health by some of the engagement with social media and that is why the government has acted.' The decision was set to heighten tensions with Alphabet, which previously threatened to withdraw services over regulatory disputes. Federal communications minister Anika Wells vowed not to be swayed by legal threats as the Albanese government awaited a report on age-verification tools that could shape enforcement of the ban. 'I will not be intimidated by legal threats when this is a genuine fight for the well-being of Australian kids,' Ms Wells told the parliament on Wednesday.
The Independent
30-07-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Australia adds YouTube to platforms covered by world-first ban on social media for teenagers
Australia announced on Wednesday that it would include YouTube in its ban on social media access for teenagers, reversing an earlier decision to exempt the Alphabet -owned video-sharing platform. The reversal could trigger a legal challenge. The ban, set to take effect in December, seeks to protect minors from harmful content and algorithm-driven exposure. The latest decision came after the internet regulator asked the government last month to overturn the YouTube carve-out, citing a survey that found 37 per cent of minors reported harmful content on the site, the worst showing for a social media platform. The prime minister said his government was standing with parents and prioritising child safety online. 'I am calling time on it,' Anthony Albanese said, stating that Australian children were being negatively affected by social media platforms. 'I want Australian parents to know that we have their backs.' While YouTube claims it's a video sharing platform, critics argue it functions similarly to banned apps like Instagram and TikTok. 'Our position remains clear: YouTube is a video sharing platform with a library of free, high-quality content, increasingly viewed on TV screens. It's not social media,' a YouTube spokesperson said by email. 'We have written directly to the government, urging them to uphold the integrity of the legislative process and protect the age-appropriate experiences and safeguards we provide for young Australians.' Other social media platforms had criticised the earlier decision to exempt YouTube from the ban, arguing that it functioned similarly to them by promoting user interaction and algorithm-based content. TikTok had described it as a 'sweetheart deal'. Although YouTube will now be included in the ban for users under 16, parents and teachers can still show videos to minors. The decision to include YouTube in the under-16 social media ban reflects growing concern over AI-driven misinformation and big tech's influence, according to cybersecurity expert Adam Marre. 'The Australian government's move to regulate YouTube is an important step in pushing back against the unchecked power of big tech and protecting kids,' he told Reuters. Mr Albanese had earlier asserted that the policy would be made independently of any corporate threats. 'The minister will make these assessments,' he told ABC TV on Sunday, 'independent of any of these threats that're made by the social media companies. I say to them that social media has a social responsibility. There's no doubt that young people are being impacted adversely in their mental health by some of the engagement with social media and that is why the government has acted.' The decision was set to heighten tensions with Alphabet, which previously threatened to withdraw services over regulatory disputes. Federal communications minister Anika Wells vowed not to be swayed by legal threats as the Albanese government awaited a report on age-verification tools that could shape enforcement of the ban. 'I will not be intimidated by legal threats when this is a genuine fight for the well-being of Australian kids,' Ms Wells told the parliament on Wednesday.
