Ex-Minister Predicts Battle Over UK Internet Content Rules
Concerns Raised Over Upcoming Online Safety Legislation in the U.K.
A former U.K. Minister of State for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) has cautioned about the impending parliamentary debate concerning the specifics of the forthcoming online safety legislation.
In a discussion with TechCrunch, Lord Vaizey of Didcot – formerly Ed Vaizey, a Conservative Party MP who led the culture, communications, and creative industries department from 2010 to 2016 – forecasted a significant struggle to shape the Online Safety Bill. He anticipates that numerous parliamentarians will attempt to attach their own priorities to the legislation.
Potential Risks of Regulation
Vaizey highlighted the genuine risk of excessive regulation or the creation of a disproportionate regulatory load for startups compared to established technology companies. He identified several areas demanding a measured and careful approach.
“Initially, the regulation is intended to focus on larger platforms,” he stated, referring to the Internet Safety Bill published in draft form in May. Critics have expressed concerns that the bill could have detrimental effects on free speech.
He further explained, “It’s possible that some platforms requiring regulation might escape oversight. However, there's a concern that the bill could inadvertently benefit major companies like Facebook, as the regulatory obstacles could prove too substantial for smaller entities. Facebook is certainly capable of navigating regulation, unlike a startup. This is a point requiring careful consideration.”
The Debate Over "Legal But Harmful" Content
“Furthermore, while I support regulating content that is legal yet harmful, I firmly believe this will be a central point of contention in parliament. Achieving a balance between free speech and content deemed legally permissible but harmful will be a major challenge. The final form of this provision will be particularly interesting to observe.”
“And, paradoxically, it seems likely that everyone will seek to incorporate their own specific concerns into this legislation.”
Broad Scope and Potential for Expansion
The Online Safety Bill, initially known as the Harms Bill, aims to compel online platforms to address not only illegal content but also harmful material. This encompasses a wide range of issues, including terrorist propaganda, child sexual abuse material, racism, bullying, content promoting suicide or eating disorders, and anti-vaccination viewpoints. The draft legislation has already generated considerable debate, even before formal parliamentary discussions begin.
The risk of “hobby horse” amendments – the addition of numerous unrelated issues – could significantly broaden an already extensive proposal for internet regulation. This could burden U.K. tech businesses with increased risk and regulatory compliance costs, potentially infringing upon fundamental British values like freedom of expression.
Examples of Potential Amendments
Evidence suggests that MPs are prepared to introduce amendments addressing issues beyond the bill’s core focus. For instance, anti-sex work advocates are reportedly planning to propose clauses targeting “online pimping.” This suggests that the parliamentary debate will likely be characterized by a wide range of arguments regarding the bill’s scope.
Vaizey cited online scams as a likely area for proposed amendments, although provisions targeting ad scams are likely to be among the less contentious additions.
“While I do not endorse online scams, it’s foreseeable that individuals will attempt to introduce amendments to address issues not currently covered by the bill. It’s crucial to prevent the bill from becoming overly burdened with excessive regulation, leading to inconsistencies,” he cautioned. “The bill could be significantly altered, either weakened or expanded, depending on the outcome of parliamentary debates.”
Overall Support for the Legislation
Despite these concerns, Vaizey generally expressed support for the plan, commending the government for drafting what he described as a “pioneering” bill. He argued that internet regulation is “long overdue.”
“I believe this is a groundbreaking piece of legislation. While it will undoubtedly face criticism, it’s important not to let the pursuit of perfection hinder progress. The bill will not be flawless upon its introduction to parliament, nor will it be perfect after parliamentary revisions. There will inevitably be areas for improvement during implementation by Ofcom in the coming years.”
“However, I believe that regulating technology is essential and has been delayed for too long. Leading nations such as Canada, Australia, the European Union, and the United States are closely monitoring the U.K.’s approach and will draw lessons from its experience.”
The Ofcom Chairmanship Position
A former government minister has been considered for the prominent position of chair at Ofcom, the United Kingdom's regulatory body for telecommunications and media. This comes as Ofcom prepares for an expanded scope of responsibility, encompassing oversight of internet content and major social media companies.
The government intends to empower Ofcom with the authority to impose financial penalties, potentially reaching up to 10% of a company's global annual revenue – or £18 million, whichever amount is greater – for non-compliance with regulations designed to safeguard users from unlawful or detrimental content.
Consequently, the regulator is poised to wield significant influence over the content moderation strategies and online expression policies of technology giants in the years ahead.
Lord Vaizey participated in interviews for the Ofcom chair role and was selected as a finalist by an independent selection panel. However, the then-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Oliver Dowden, opted to restart the recruitment process instead of choosing from the existing shortlist.
Sources indicate the government expressed dissatisfaction with the panel’s rejection of their preferred candidate, Paul Dacre, a former editor of the Daily Mail. It is suggested that efforts are still underway to appoint Dacre to the position of overseeing social media platforms’ adherence to legally mandated content regulations.
When questioned about his continued candidacy, Vaizey dismissed these reports, attributing the decision to rerun the competition to a limited number of initial applicants.
“The government evidently sought a more robust pool of candidates. It’s possible my interview invitation stemmed from the low application rate,” he explained to TechCrunch. “Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed the interview process and remain highly interested in serving as Ofcom’s chairman, and I will reapply when the process is reopened.”
“Ofcom has established itself effectively as a regulator of telecommunications, and to a degree, as a media regulator. However, it is now venturing into new and stimulating territory concerning internet regulation,” he further stated.
Regarding his priorities should he be appointed chair, Vaizey emphasized internet safety as his foremost concern, acknowledging the complexities of regulating the digital landscape.
“The greatest challenge for Ofcom will be integrating this expanded role. Communicating to the public and stakeholders that this will be an evolving process is also crucial,” he noted, anticipating that the regulator’s full capabilities “will not be immediately realized.”
If offering a constructive critique of Ofcom, Vaizey suggested the regulator should strengthen its “pro-business” approach.
“Supporting businesses can also benefit consumers,” he asserted. “In a highly competitive market, the regulator’s role extends beyond regulation to knowing when to refrain from intervention and allow businesses to operate within a complex environment.”
“Therefore, my contribution to Ofcom would be to ensure businesses perceive the regulator as a partner, rather than solely an enforcer,” he concluded.
Data Adequacy Concerns
TechCrunch sought the perspective of a former minister regarding the government's inclination towards revising data protection regulations.
A government consultation on data reform was announced last month, proposing that streamlined regulations would benefit businesses.
Currently, the U.K.’s privacy framework is founded upon the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), widely recognized as the global benchmark for safeguarding digital information. However, the current governmental direction suggests a preference for diminishing the existing high level of protection afforded to U.K. citizens’ data, without a compelling economic justification for how reduced domestic privacy standards would advantage digital enterprises.
The government has posited the simple notion that increased data access will stimulate “innovation.” Nevertheless, U.K. startups aiming to operate within the European market – or U.S. firms subject to regulations like California’s CCPA – will still be required to adhere to stringent privacy rules elsewhere.
Vaziey indicated that adjustments could be made to the practical application of U.K. data protection rules to lessen the burden on U.K. businesses and organizations, provided the core principles of privacy and personal data protection remain intact.
He cautioned, however, that maintaining alignment with EU standards is crucial for the digital economy, warning that losing the data adequacy agreement with the EU – which enables the continued free flow of data from Europe to the U.K. – would be “disastrous.”
“Given the U.K.’s significant role in shaping data protection legislation during its EU membership, it seems somewhat paradoxical to now distance ourselves from it,” Vaizey also stated.
“Data protection is fundamentally an EU construct, and therefore the government’s primary consideration when contemplating reforms should be the situation in the U.S., where two data transfer agreements with the European Commission have been invalidated by the European Court of Justice.”
“The aim should be to avoid a scenario where the U.K. becomes susceptible to challenges from the EU asserting that its data protection regime is insufficient, leading to restrictions on cross-border data exchanges – a consequence that would be devastating. Regardless of preference, a degree of synchronization with the European Union will be necessary.”
“Furthermore,” he added, “EU legislation has effectively established the gold standard for data protection. California’s adoption of data privacy legislation is demonstrably based on European models, and most tech companies will adopt this as their standard practice to simplify global operations.”
The U.K.'s Need to Remain Accessible to Technological Expertise
Lord Vaizey has recently been appointed as the patron of ITP, the Institute of Telecommunications Professionals – a U.K. industry association concentrating on digital skills development.
When addressing the skill deficits confronting the nation, he emphasized the importance of avoiding self-satisfaction, considering the escalating worldwide demand and the intensifying global contest for tech professionals.
“The U.K. is currently performing strongly and continues to do so,” he stated, while discussing governmental strategies for skill enhancement – which now incorporates a decade-long plan to strengthen domestic AI capabilities. “However, sustained success requires constant effort and the appropriate allocation of resources to facilitate further progress.”
He further noted, “President Macron’s initiatives in France demonstrate a remarkable transformation, elevating France’s standing as a destination for technology. Therefore, maintaining a proactive stance is crucial for the U.K.”
Vaizey also raised questions regarding the government’s potential adoption of a fundamentally “open” immigration policy to foster the growth of U.K.-based startups.
“The challenge of attracting skilled workers is universal,” he explained. “Startups across Europe and the United States are all vying for the same talent pool.”
“The increased availability of entrepreneur visas through organizations like Tech Nation is encouraging, but the government must prioritize the recruitment of individuals possessing essential technological skills to support these startups. Flexibility is paramount.”
He continued, “The previous freedom of movement within the EU offered a significant advantage, as employment opportunities extended to partners as well. Replicating this benefit should be a key consideration for policymakers.”
The Importance of Immigration for Tech Startups
- Competition for tech talent is global.
- Entrepreneur visas are a positive step.
- Facilitating partner visas is crucial.
ITP’s new patron believes that a welcoming approach to skilled immigration is vital for the U.K.’s continued success in the tech sector.
