Latest news with #onlineharm
BBC News
3 days ago
- Politics
- BBC News
New online safety rules are here but as tech races ahead, expect changes
It's surely the darkest fear of any mum or dad - losing their child to a world that's out of sight, a place where they can't protect Ghey, Ian Russell, Mariano Janin, Liam Walsh, Ellen Roome, Lisa Kenevan, Hollie Dance and Judy are all parents who believe the internet played a part in the death of their children: Brianna, Molly, Mia, Maia, Jools, Isaac, Archie and they've courageously told us their stories, sharing their pain, partly in the hope of pushing the authorities to regulate what happens on the internet more years of campaigning and political debate, tech platforms will - within weeks - be legally obliged to stop kids seeing harmful content online, including pornography and material encouraging self-harm. They'll be expected to check users' ages, and if they don't, they could be punished with heavy the debate over whether the changes will have the right effect is already raging. In private, the government freely admits the new rules already need an update. So what is going on? Technological advances "If it does what it says it does, it should be really big," said one Whitehall source, with high hopes of the change on the will be responsible for enforcing new child safety rules which will require platforms to check users' ages. These take effect on 25 July - and Ofcom's chief executive, Dame Melanie Dawes, will join me live in the studio tomorrow morning to explain regulator won't tell platforms exactly how to verify users' ages. But it could be sharing a selfie in real time, or checking bank details. Without proving they are 18, a child or teenager should theoretically not be able to see content that might do them measures to make tech firms remove illegal content have already come into force. A senior Whitehall source said: "We have had 20 years with no attention being paid to safety." You can't say that some observers take a very dim view of how much the new rules are going to campaigner said: "If we believed the breathless PR, we could all take to our deckchairs and just enjoy the sun."Rightly or wrongly, the new rules don't cover what kids share with each other on messaging apps, and they don't block risky stunts or challenges or in-app purchases like loot boxes that end up costing some families a as technology races ahead, the rules don't fully cover AI chatbots which are increasingly grabbing kids' Online Safety Act, which was passed in 2023, didn't tackle material that is harmful but legal for adults - not least because of an almighty row in the Conservative Party when they were in was it set up to tackle misinformation or hate, which MPs warned on Friday left serious holes in the new system designed to protect the Online Safety Act is - and how to keep children safe online The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which investigated the law in the wake of the Southport riots, said internet users were being exposed to large volumes of harmful and misleading content "which can deceive, damage mental health, normalise extremist views, undermine democracy, and fuel violence".MPs in the committee concluded that the Act failed to keep UK citizens "safe from a core and pervasive online harm".Many safety campaigners think the rules simply don't go far enough and that Ofcom has been far too cautious. A former cabinet minister tells me: "I just don't understand their lack of pace or urgency."It took years to get the Online Safety Act passed as law in the first place. Parliament spent a long time grappling with real dilemmas - especially how to protect fundamental rights of free speech and Ofcom took many months to write the codes of practice that have come into force over time. They wanted to create rules that were practical for the tech platforms industry source says Ofcom had been "sensible and grown-up", and while the rules weren't "revolutionary" they were important, positioning the UK between tighter regulations in the EU and a more lax regime in the you look at it, these new laws have been a very, very long time coming. And while Whitehall has been grinding along, technology, and the kinds of experiences we all have online, has been racing had really heard of AI five years ago? Many sources I've spoken to question now if the way the whole system has been designed is the right former minister I spoke to said it was a "category error" to regulate the internet in this way, questioning whether Ofcom was the right body to do the ultimately, Ofcom can only work within the laws MPs set. While we'll be focusing in the studio tomorrow on the effect the new rules will have, there is already an obvious demand among politicians to go education secretary branded the Tories' suggestion to ban phones in schools a "gimmick". The PM said it was "unnecessary". But the House of Lords might back the idea in votes in mid-autumn, pushing the question back to some newly emboldened Labour backbenchers be tempted to support it too? One of them told me if there were a reshuffle, and a new education secretary, "I'd be straight in there to say, ditch the battle, get on the right side of the public and parents, and agree to the Tories' proposal."But I understand there are new measures developed in government that might emerge even before then, shortly after the the age verification measures about to come into force, the cabinet minister in charge, Peter Kyle, wants to shift the conversation towards healthy habits. The Online Safety Act focuses on what we can see on the internet. But Kyle's next focus is on how we use it, considering how some apps could be addictive.A source said: "kids shouldn't have to be grateful they can't see violent porn on their devices… the next debate is about what is healthy online." Ministers are considering how they could protect children from algorithms that "can make kids feel out of control", or drive compulsive behaviour. Proposals on the table include an "app cap", screen time limits, extra rules on live streams, and making more of a distinction between what 13 and 16-year-olds can do legislation is likely to bring in the next round of changes, but right now, as one MP said: "it is stuck somewhere in the system."You can expect the next round of conversations about how governments can protect the public from the worst excesses of the internet while enjoying its incredible opportunities to be part of the political soundtrack of the has changed so many aspects of our lives so fast for the better in recent years. But for too many families, their experiences online have brought terrible pain. Just as our heads might spin trying to understand all the changes, politicians have perhaps struggled to balance the dangers as well as the opportunities, and how they might be called on to protect the happens online is not the usual turf of politics like making ends meet, running schools or hospitals. But just as our virtual lives are an increasing part of our world, they are becoming a bigger part of our political life too. A list of organisations in the UK offering support and information with some of the issues in this story is available at BBC Action Line Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you. BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
RNZ News
10-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Mediawatch: Sudden surge of political concern about social media
The PM and National MP Catherine Wedd on TikTok announcing her Members Bill to restrict use of social media platforms to people over 16. Photo: TikTok On their ZM show last Wednesday, Fletch, Vaughn, and Hayley listed things they'd ban for teenagers if they could. "When I go to the mall, they're bloody crawling everywhere, aren't they? Oh, my God," spluttered Fletch. "How do they get the money? I was at the mall the other day and there were all these kids and they had like, shopping bags. I know, it's like, where do you get the money?" asked Hayley. It was a mocking response to news from the day before. The Prime Minister and National MP Catherine Wedd teamed up on social media to unveil her Member's Bill to restrict social media for under 16s. "As a Dad, I feel very strongly that we need to do more to keep our kids safe from online harm," Luxon said on TikTok - and other platforms he didn't want under-16s to use. "We have restrictions to keep our children safe in the physical world, but we don't have restrictions in the virtual world - and we should," he said What young people should and shouldn't do has been a theme in politics lately - and our media have picked it up and run with it. Last week a call to bring in compulsory national military service for young Kiwis received some enthusiastic backing on talk radio. The ban on phones in schools last year got widespread media approval too. (The effort to cut back their school lunches ... not so much). "Restricting access puts the onus on social media companies to verify someone is over the age of 16. It mirrors the approach taken in Australia and follows work in other countries like the UK, the EU and Canada," Wedd said, alongside the PM. If the goal was to get the Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill talked about in the media, it worked. Within minutes, Wellington Mornings host Nick Mills endorsed the idea on Newstalk ZB. At the other end of the working day, the idea was discussed at length on RNZ's Panel and Newstalk ZB's equivalent, The Huddle. "It's a good idea in principle. Evidence shows there's harm to younger people. Kids younger than 13 are not allowed on social media ... but I think there's strong evidence to show that 16 is a good age for that," former Facebook CEO for Australia and New Zealand, Stephen Scheeler told Newstalk ZB . The proposed ban was big news on both 6pm TV news bulletins too. But it's in the Members Bill biscuit tin along with dozens of others drafted by hopeful MPs. It will only go before Parliament if it's picked out in the ballot. The odds are even longer for this Bill under this government, even though the PM himself backed it. If online safety is really a big issue for National and the PM, a bigger hitter in his Cabinet could have backed the Bill. Communications and media minister Paul Goldsmith for example - who the PM hailed as one of his 'aces in place' when he gave him that job last year - is currently pushing proposals to update the way media are regulated. The other sensible choice would be the Minister of Internal Affairs, whose department oversees digital safety and online services. But in this coalition, that's Brooke Van Velden - also deputy leader of ACT, which doesn't believe this is the government's business. "I'm really worried about social media's effect but for every problem there's a solution that is simple, neat and ... wrong. Just slapping on a ban hastily drafted won't solve the real problem," Act leader David Seymour told reporters last Tuesday. "Australia's passed a law that hasn't come into effect yet and already they've had to carve out YouTube," he added. Australia's impending ban - also personally backed by their PM who has just won an election- does indeed exclude YouTube. TikTok complained it was like banning fizzy drinks , but exempting Coca-Cola]. In an RNZ article about that last week the Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden said: "A minimum age for social media is not something the New Zealand Government is considering." Catherine Wedd told the media this week she'd been working on her Bill for a year. Clearly she and Act and are not on the same page. Or Labour. The former government's proposals for a one-stop shop to regulate media - Safer Online Services and media Platforms - were scrapped by Van Velden a year ago . Soon after Wedd's Members Bill was unveiled on Tuesday, former District Court Judge David Harvey - an expert on internet law - said the main problem was the onus on social media companies to verify users' age. "Currently, there are no legally enforceable age verification measures for social media platforms in New Zealand," he said on his Substack . Wedd had called the bill "a result for concerned parents" on RNZ's Morning Report, but Mike Hosking challenged MP Catherine Wedd on that soon after. "I'm a parent. Don't sell me the emotion. Sell me the technical answer. You don't have it. Technically, we simply don't know how to do it," he told her. On Substack, David Harvey also said if the problem is bullying and inappropriate content, we already have a law for that: the Harmful Digital Communications Act . Also, many children and young people today already live their lives online and via social media - including those now under 16 who would be forced to stop. That's set it out in Content that Crosses the Line , a report on how young New Zealanders operate online, what alarms them and what they think they need protection from. It's the work of The Classification Office, an agency set up long before the internet ever existed. The survey found social media platforms use is widespread, in spite of minimum age requirements. Young people interviewed said taking away their devices and banning them from social media would be a significant interference with the way in which they lived their lives. "(They) engage with social media and other online content for the same reasons as adults: to make and maintain social connections, access entertainment, stay informed, explore their interests, and express themselves. Most young people grow up with consistent access to online content, and the use of social media is generally seen as a normal part of life." The report also concluded young users know their content feeds are shaped by their own activity. This highlighted "how little control they often feel they have" over what they're shown by the opaque algorithms of the platforms. "Some participants talked about how harmful or disturbing content can appear unexpectedly while scrolling through social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram or Snapchat --- even when they hadn't searched for it." There's plenty more in that report - but it was ignored by media when was released last week. That's in stark contrast to the announcement of a Members Bill that may never even be debated in Parliament, let alone passed into law. If so, it'll be another failed effort in the lives of an entire generation that has grown up online without any serious steps to moderate the internet. Back in 2011, justice minister Simon Power ordered a review into what he called the ''wild west'' online world. The Law Commission recommended major reform of New Zealand's regulators and watchdog agencies. A decade and a half later, New Zealand still has the same pre-Internet era organisations regulating media. None of them really marshall the internet for the good of New Zealanders, whether they're over 16 or not. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
