The UK’s new Online Safety Bill is a massive change, heralding a new digital age that is safer for users. Tech giants and websites will be held to account, and they don’t have to be UK based to face the enormous consequences. This will affect photographers and photography websites around the world.
The UK is putting through Parliament a new bill that will completely change the way the internet works, making it safer for everyone, especially for children and vulnerable people. It looks as if this won’t just affect websites hosted in the UK, but all those that allow their content to be viewable there.
Governments around the world are watching to see how this will work, and the adoption of similar laws in other countries is likely to follow. The new laws written into the bill will put the onus on website owners to have effective controls in place that restrict harmful content, including hate speech, pornography, and violence, and limit people’s exposure to it. At the same time, it is designed to protect freedom of speech.
The government say that the bill has five policy objectives:
- to increase user safety online
- to preserve and enhance freedom of speech online
- to improve law enforcement’s ability to tackle illegal content online
- to improve users’ ability to keep themselves safe online
- to improve society’s understanding of the harm landscape
It will be the service providers’ responsibility to protect the public, and they can be fined up to 10% of their global revenue, or up to £18 million GBP (approximately $23.5 million USD) for failing in their duty of care to their users. Senior managers of the companies will also be criminally liable if their businesses fail to meet the requirements of the bill.
Those punishments are significant deterrents. Consequently, one can expect the big tech companies that recognize that other governments will soon follow suit are already looking at how they can comply with the new regulations when they are launched.
This is, of course, aimed mainly at the big players like Meta (Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp, etc), Alphabet (Google and its subsidiaries), and ByteDance (TikTok). But it looks as if it will also apply to smaller websites too, including 500px, Only Fans, Twitter, Reddit, Gala, VSCO, Petapixel, and Fstoppers. It may even apply to your blog and maybe Squarespace or WordPress too if they host your site.
Because the Internet evolves so rapidly, the bill’s framework is designed to be quickly adapted to meet new threats. It has been constantly added to since its inception; when it was first drafted, TikTok did not exist. Even now, as the metaverse rapidly grows, discussions are underway for that to be included in the law. I have written to my member of Parliament to lobby the inclusion of certain deep fake images that are used to undermine democracy or cause harm to individuals, such as using AI to superimpose victims' faces onto pornography.
If website owners are hosting harmful content and not putting controls in place, such as age verification for accessing pornography, then they will be committing a criminal offense and subject to punitive action. The law also forbids having breadcrumbs that lead to harmful or illegal content.
This bill is also making it a criminal offense for businesses to destroy evidence and for obstructing the UK’s regulator, Ofcom.
I realize that in America, this will shock some. Freedom of speech to many there seems to mean the freedom to say anything. On the other side of the Atlantic, there is a different approach, and the laws in the UK and Europe on hate speech are much tougher. Protection of other human rights and personal safety outdoes freedom of speech; just because you can say something doesn’t mean you should.
Verbally abusing or discriminating against those with protected status, (i.e. age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation) is a criminal offense in the UK and European countries. Under this new law, instead of it being only the people making hateful comments that are committing a crime, those websites that allow it in posts or comments will be liable. The new law goes beyond that. Content that is harmful but not illegal, such as promoting suicide, self-harm, or eating disorders, will be criminalized too.
The internet has transformed our lives for the better. It’s connected us and empowered us. But on the other side, tech firms haven’t been held to account when harm, abuse and criminal behaviour have run riot on their platforms. Instead, they have been left to mark their own homework.We don’t give it a second’s thought when we buckle our seat belts to protect ourselves when driving. Given all the risks online, it’s only sensible we ensure similar basic protections for the digital age. If we fail to act, we risk sacrificing the wellbeing and innocence of countless generations of children to the power of unchecked algorithms.
- Nadine Dorries, Digital Secretary
Consequently, we can expect sites accessible in the UK that allow individuals to post comments that include misogyny and racism, something that happens in the comments sections of some photographic sites, to suffer the force of the law.
No doubt, there are a small number of the worst offenders thinking that they are not in the UK and that they will be protected by their nation. Indeed, there are currently no reciprocal enforcement agreements between the US and the UK. However, there are extradition agreements with most other countries in the world. So, in effect, offenders in the USA will be imprisoned in their own country for fear of extradition to face trial in the UK if they leave it. Furthermore, as other countries adopt similar laws, greater pressure will be placed on the US to impose parallel restrictions to protect their citizens too.
Larger companies will also be looking at the sanctions placed on Putin and his oligarch supporters following the ongoing illegal war in Ukraine and the atrocities being inflicted on the people there. These sanctions have included the confiscation and freezing of assets. One can assume that similar sanctions will be put in place for tech companies that fail to comply. In the long-term, one can expect that countries that shelter and permit offenders to post such content will also be sanctioned.
The new measures also clamp down on anonymous trolls. In the UK recently, one anonymous troll attacked a TV presenter on Twitter, was caught, and had to pay the victim a six-figure sum. That troll, despite hiding behind a false ID, was found out. The latest forensic investigative methods mean that cowardly trolls can no longer hide behind fake personas, and civil actions for defamation will now be backed up by criminal law.
The bill hopes to balance these restrictions by strengthening people’s rights and allowing freedom of expression online too. It will make sure that social media companies are not removing legal free speech. UK users here will have a right of appeal if they believe a post was unfairly removed. Social media firms must also both protect journalism and democratic political debate that takes place on their platforms.
An exemption from the law will be in place for genuine news content. However, most photography sites will probably not fall into the news category.
Content providers may need to use more effective tools for content moderation, and learning algorithms are able to filter out offending content. It does require content hosts to do more than rely on users to report abuse. However, that doesn’t mean supporters of online communities should stop helping moderate content as you hopefully do now.
So, how does this affect the individual photographer? Firstly, most photographers are good, kind, honest people who object to the kind of behavior that this law will criminalize, so it will be welcomed. Here in the UK, where I am based, we will benefit by having a safer environment in which to work. With luck, that will have a knock-on effect in other countries that will be strengthened when others adopt similar laws. Life is going to become more difficult for the trolls that have found a haven on photography websites, which is a good thing. Finally, attacking people from behind fake identities will hopefully become a thing of the past.
The democratically elected government, that I personally did not vote for, had this as an election pledge.
Hate speech has a very specific legal meaning here, and in Europe where the laws are pretty much the same. It is an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 5(1):
"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he/she:
(a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],"
The law just gives provisions for those who publish hate speech, and things like child pornography, drug dealing, and promoting terrorism published into the UK to be held accountable. The publishers are the big companies like Meta and Alphabet who currently permit their platforms to be used in this way. Currently, there are no laws in place to enforce those corporations to control the content on their platforms.
All laws put some restrictions on the majority of people who would not dream of carrying out thse acts even if they were not illegal.
But that isn't specific at all, because they can interpret "abusive words or behavior" in a countless number of ways. Heck, if you call someone an idiot, they could say that that was abusive, and remove your content. And that is B.S.
Moreover, the kind of behavior that we all agree should be illegal is illegal in most countries already. No, the law is to control the net. Beware the beginnings!
Re: "Moreover, the kind of behavior that we all agree should be illegal is illegal in most countries already. No, the law is to control the net. Beware the beginnings!"
No, it's not.
This law addresses PUBLISHERS.
Publishers, who at the moment are indemnified, and who are making a killing, so to speak, on deadly 'speech'.
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
Then I ask, what is a PUBLISHER. Am I one, because I reply to your comment? Certainly, my blog is a published content. So, if I show "disorderly behavior", e.g. calling the chief of some country a foolish dictator, and that country does not like that, will the UK or the EU try to silence me? See, I don't care what strange laws you make in your UK, but I care if you make laws that apply to me as a European Citizen.
In response top "... Rene Grothmann to Peter Blaise - June 4, 2022 [Edited] Then I ask, what is a PUBLISHER. Am I one, because I reply to your comment? Certainly, my blog is a published content. So, if I show "disorderly behavior", e.g. calling the chief of some country a foolish dictator, and that country does not like that, will the UK or the EU try to silence me? See, I don't care what strange laws you make in your UK, but I care if you make laws that apply to me as a European Citizen ..."
We all probably need to read the law and interpretations.
As far as I can see, the law legislates the government to act, where prior, individuals had to individually sue - this is a common function of legislation.
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
While I support safety, who decides what is safe or unsafe? Will there be a time limit between post and removal of posts before a fine is levied? The risk to companies, both large and small, are huge! If we post a nude (yet artistic) photo then an ultra conservative person/organization reports, then what? Will the photographer have to hire a $500/hr lawyer to resolve? I can see Google, Facebook etc hiring 10K more monitors and 25K more lawyers.
Who decides? That's pretty much down to those with responsibilities for making the laws (Parliament), enforcing the law (e.g. the police, the ICO and others), prosecuting the offenders (the Crown Prosecution Service), the jury, and the judge. Google and Facebook are already looking at changes to their systems to comply with the law, including AI monitoring.
Now that the UK is no longer part of the EU, this law, while I'm sure envisioned with the best intentions, will find the UK cut off from the world. Tech giants like Meta and Google and Twitter and TikTok we'll just simply cut off the UK if they and their employees are threatened. The UK simply doesn't have enough citizens to generate enough revenue to put their companies, their employees, and especially their bottom lines at risk. The UK will find itself in the internet dark ages. The assumption that this law will spread and be adopted elsewhere is based on wishful thinking not necessarily reality. Most lawmakers barely understand the difference between a cup holder and an old school CD-ROM drive let alone how to work between countries to find solutions that work across the globe to protect people.
Apart from the fact that the EU are also creating parallel legislation.
Probably the most frightening article I've seen here. 'Hate speech' can and HAS BEEN twisted to anything someone, somewhere, finds offensive. And the inclusions keep growing. People have been arrested in UK for saying things that are pretty normal elsewhere.
That's a rather sweeping statement without any examples to illustrate it.
Hate speech has a very specific legal meaning here, and in Europe where the laws are pretty much the same. It is not about finding something offensive that is loose and undefined by definition, but an offence created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 5(1):
"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he/she:
(a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],"
So, if elsewhere threatening and abusive behavior is normalized, then I am glad I don't live there.
No, that is not specific at all. It is wide open to all kinds of interpretation.
Mc G, it is about protecting vulnerable people, no matter their race.
WTF? Has anyone here read 1984? This has the beginnings of Wrong Think written all over it. People (who are infinitely corruptible) will be in charge of enforcing this law and of course, it will grow and be used to protect the powerful from ideas they don’t like.
Yup, read it again last year. The big difference is that the UK has a democratically elected government and so can be ousted and laws thus can be changed. That was not the case in Blair's book.
Don't you agree with preventing platforms such as Google publishing child pornography or incitement to commit acts of terrorism then?
If your local bookshop was selling books that encouraged and instructed people how to assassinate your elected leaders, or blow up police stations, or carry out shootings in schools, or attack people who looked like you, you want that bookshop stopped from doing that? This law does exactly the same, but targets the big internet companies that publish similar content in the UK.
As an American assume the UK already has laws addressing child porn and inciting acts of violence. However, this is talking about hate speech which I can only assume is an insult.
I would rather have people be allowed to say stupid things so that we know who they are. If I see something online that is racist then I know that person is an idiot if that same person is not allowed to make a stupid statement online how do you know who the idiots are? Furthermore, if I’m insulted by an idiot I think I would feel very good about that.
Shutting people up and forcing them underground will only cause them to fester and brood in their own hate. How can you change a racist mind? By talking with them explain why they are wrong give them a chance to tell their side and then knock each of their points down. You should be confident in your own knowledge and convictions to do that. Some of these people are very misguided and can be talked out of their beliefs.
P.S. It's Orwell, don't know what Blair book you are referring too.
P.s. Eric Blair of course.
Re: "P.S. It's Orwell, don't know what Blair book you are referring too"
Let me Google that for you:
"Eric Arthur Blair, known by his pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic. His work is characterised by lucid prose, social criticism, opposition to totalitarianism, and support of democratic socialism." Wikipedia
Note, worthy of repeating:
"opposition to totalitarianism,
and support of democratic socialism"
I observe those ideals to be lost on most totalitarians who cite 'Orwell' in their attempted ridicule against democratic socialists.
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
Using my bookshop analogy, there are no laws preventing the bookshop (Alphabet, Meta, etc) from publishing those books (child porn, incitement to commit acts of terrorism, sell drugs, racial hatred, misogyy etc.) Into the UK. The Bill will make it an offence for them to do that. That will protect vulnerable people from being corrupted by those publications.
The writers of that material, if they publish it into this country, will similarly be committing a crime.
You might find it useful to read what the UN defines as hate speech. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech
Re" [ snipped ] "I would rather have people be allowed to say stupid things so that we know who they are"
Again, this is NOT about idiot posters.
This is about PUBLISHERS, who are currently indemnified, and who, at the moment, are making a killing, so to speak, on publishing deadly speech.
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
It is not terrorists, but the former US president who is banned from Twitter. For the sake of good, now it is okay in Central Europe to wish death for Russian soldiers on Facebook. Special rule, for special times. This should make you think…
Normal people don't think that is ok, don't generalise all of us as if we all share the same mindset.
Re: "It is not terrorists, but the former US president who is banned from Twitter"
Duh.
I'm not sure what point you think you are making, but if terrorizing speech warrants a ban, then those proffering terrorizing speech get banned.
Let me Google that for you:
"Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
By Twitter Friday, 8 January 2021
After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them - specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter - we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence. In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open.
However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things. We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement."
More at Twitter:
[ https ://blog. twitter. com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension ]
But more importantly, this is NOT about terrorizing speech in and of itself ( note the endless in-person "free speech" carnivals by your referenced person ).
This is about PUBLISHERS, who are currently indemnified, and who, at the moment, are making a killing, so to speak, on deadly speech.
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
Re: "now it is okay in Central Europe to wish death for Russian soldiers on Facebook"
"... death ... on Facebook ...", oh my.
My avatar is deceased.
Waaa.
Boing!
There it is, alive again!
Gotta love video game reset!
;-)
- - - - -
I think you mean:
- "now it is OK, on Facebook in Central Europe, to wish death for Russian soldiers"
Transposing English phraseology and constructs can have such diversionary unintended meanings.
( And it's 'OK', not 'okay', but many people spell out phonetics, and I, at least, understood the reference. )
Although you do not cite a specific quote from Facebook in Central Europe, I think the intention should - 'should' - probably be:
- wishing legally equal arrest, prosecution, conviction, and incarceration of Russian soldiers trespassing in Ukraine, assaulting, battering, raping, killing people, destroying property, and stealing property, and the same for the Russian hierarchy responsible, even though the bosses, like a certain former US president, stayed home and watch it on the telly, sipping their respective imbibements, diet Coke in the US, probably a White Russian in the NUSSR ( "New USSR", pronounced "noose-er", as in "one who uses a noose" ).
Is that what you were trying to say?
And how bout Putin threatening nuclear attack on Central Europe?
And any number of other Putinisms, like “traitors, the Russian people will spit out like a fly that accidentally fell into his mouth”.
More:
- Here's a list of abuses and crimes in Vladimir Putin's Russia
[ https://qz.com/862764/heres-a-list-of-abuses-in-vladimir-putins-russia/ ]
- What's Behind Putin's Dirty, Violent Speeches - The Atlantic
[ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/vladimir-putin-dirty-l... ]
Is that OK?
( Or, "Is that okay?" for non-English speakers. )
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.