Katie Roche's Blog

Beware of the Online Harms Bill

The Online Harms Bill was confirmed last week. If the bill becomes law, it will hold social media companies responsible for various “online harms”. They could be fined heavily for hosting “harmful but legal” content, such as self-harm images and misinformation. Also, it imposes a duty of care on social media companies, enabling people to sue these companies for the consequences of online harms. This bill is very alarming. For many, social media has taken the place of the pub, a café or their living room. It’s a place to chat, meet new people and socialize. As such, people feel able to speak their mind. But the online harms bill could threaten that.

First, the white paper that preceded the bill defined “abuse of public figures” as an online harm. Celebrities have been trolled and had mental health problems which they attribute to trolling on social media. Trolling isn’t nice. Part of the problem is that people don’t see public figures as real people. They seem so distant from the rest of us. Add to that, the internet is a large, anonymous place. Even if people did use their real names online, the fact that face-to-face confrontation is unlikely makes people feel able to act more unkindly than they would in real life. Also, many trolls assume that celebrities and other public figures don’t read their own social media feeds.

Another issue with social media is that a page meant only for someone’s friends or family can end up being seen by other people. People say stupid things. And people talk behind other people’s backs. In real life, people make unkind comments about celebrities. At home with our friends, they can’t hear them. But online, the celebrity can see them. Would the Online Harms Bill stop people from making negative comments about famous people? This is certainly a possibility. Moreover, there’s a difference between saying something to someone and something about someone. For instance, sending a direct message to a celebrity, compared to making a public post or page about a celebrity. But the law might not cope with that distinction.

Furthermore, public figures open themselves up to scrutiny. They are role models for many, so they are held up to a higher standard than they average person. And many celebrities give as good as they get online. Celebrities have more power than most people. They could force social media companies to remove factually accurate but embarrassing information. For instance, that they used illegal drugs or that they had an affair. Given the way that people look up to celebrities, the public has a right to know when they are behaving badly.

In addition, the white paper explicitly includes politicians has public figures. This is especially concerning. We elect politicians. But the bill could get in the way of scrutiny. For instance, if someone called a female MP a “silly cow” on social media because they disagreed with her, the site could be breaking the law if it doesn’t remove that post straight away. It’s not a polite thing to say. However, you’re allowed to not like people. And you’re allowed to say you don’t like someone. Also, words are hard. Not everyone can write beautifully eloquent pieces about why they disagree with certain politicians. Which is why people resort to insults.

The bill also attempts to regulate fake news. Fake news is a problem. We’ve all seen fake news. And we all know a well-meaning but naïve person who believes everything they read on social media. It’s particularly pertinent right now because of Coronavirus. The spread of fake news about Coronavirus has led to mobile phone mast fires and unfounded fears over the Coronavirus vaccine. And we need as many people to have the vaccine to get back to normal.

People are allowed to be worried about the vaccine. Especially about the speed at which it has been developed. I don’t think their fears are well-founded. Nonetheless, there’s fake news too. For instance, a rumour spread that the first person to receive the Oxford vaccine in a trial died. This isn’t true. She is still alive and well. There’s also the myth that the vaccine contains a tiny microchip that’s capable of tracking a person’s actions or thoughts. Such technology doesn’t exist. But what do we do about these false stories? It’s a tricky situation.

On one hand, social media is like chatting to someone in the pub. You don’t trust everything everyone says. If a stranger in a pub came and told you that vaccines were dangerous, that you could use common law to evade paying debts and that the US election was rigged, you wouldn’t take them too seriously. If you saw someone saying the same things on social media, you shouldn’t take them seriously either. At the same time, you don’t expect the bartender to come and fact-check your conversations with your friends. Or to ban you for making factually inaccurate statements if you got muddled up.

In other ways, social media is treated as an authoritative source like a newspaper or a television program. When we read a newspaper article, we expect it to be factually accurate. We’d take what it said seriously. Occasionally, information is posted on social media from sources that appear authoritative. For example, it might claim to be a message from the police or a hospital. Or a person writing a post could pretend to be an expert, such as a nurse or a lawyer. Naturally, some people take this seriously, especially if they aren’t very tech-savvy. Which is why fake news is a problem. There’s no simple solution to this.

Bear in mind that social media isn’t the sole source of conspiracy theories. Many conspiracy theories predate the internet. For example, mobile phone masts have been a subject of conspiracy theories for as long as they’ve existed. In the earlier days, there were concerns that they caused cancer. Indeed, there was a lawsuit in 1993 in the USA against NEC, a now defunct mobile phone manufacturer, from the husband of a woman who had brain cancer. Vaccine fears go back a long time too. In the 1970s, there were claims that the Whooping Cough vaccine caused brain damage, which led to a fall in the number of children receiving this vaccine.

Moreover, hardcore conspiracy theorists will see the law as an attempt to suppress them. They will perceive that the government doesn’t want people to know the truth. These hardcore conspiracy theories have deep psychological issues. Social media restrictions won’t help that. The Online Harms Bill won’t make them stop spreading their views. If anything, it will galvanize them and they will find a new outlet for their theories.

The bill’s clumsy attempt to regulate self-harm content is also a problem. Part of the reason this bill was introduced was in response to the death of Molly Russell. Molly Russell was a teenage girl who killed herself after looking at self-harm photographs on social media. It’s very sad for her family and others who’ve died from suicide and self-harm. It’s also natural for Molly’s family to want to hold someone responsible for their daughter’s death. Even if there isn’t anyone to blame. But do self-harm images actually cause self-harm? Most people don’t want to see these pictures. But a person who feels depressed and is thinking about harming themselves may seek out this material. That doesn’t necessarily mean the images caused them to self-harm. Looking at self-harm images is more of a symptom rather than the cause of self-harm and suicide.

There have been issues with photos of self-harm scars being censored too. I.e. a photograph of a person who happens to have self-harm injuries or scars can be taken down, even when the picture isn’t focusing on the scars. This must be distressing for the person in the photograph. It also makes self-harm more stigmatized.

More worryingly, this law could stop people from discussing suicide or self-harm. It can be difficult to distinguish between pro-suicide and anti-suicide content. Suicidal people (unsurprisingly) often espouse pro-suicide sentiments. And, sometimes, discussing a plan or methods can be helpful. For instance, another person might point out that a certain method could cause serious but non-fatal injury such as paralysis. This can lead a suicidal person to change their mind. If a social media company is frightened of being sued or fined, they might air on the side of caution and remove any pages discussing suicide or self-harm. Ultimately, this will leave those with mental health issues with less support.

Children’s mental health is of particular concern. Much of the rationale for these restrictions is that content impacts negatively on their mental health. Children need to be kept safe. But the bill might not help with that either. First, kids are great at getting around any attempts to limit what they do online. They lie about their age on social media sites to bypass restrictions. They know all the tricks for bypassing filtering software too. If a child really wants to see self-harm images or find information about suicide methods, they’ll find a way to do it.

Finally, there’s a good chance this bill will become outdated very quickly. Remember the internet 20 years ago? Slow dial-up internet. No social media as we know it today. There were far fewer websites. And those sites had to be minimal to make loading times quicker. That meant few images and no video. Most computers didn’t have the capacity for video in any case. Computers and internet were expensive too. Most households had the family desktop computer with a big, clunky CRT monitor. There was no wi-fi, 3G, 4G or 5G either. If you were one of the few people who were lucky enough to afford a laptop, you were tethered to the ethernet port. Mobile phones were too expensive to consider giving one to a child. They had few functions too. They had tiny LCD displays and no camera. All you could do was make phone calls and send texts. On some models, there were small games. But that was it. Can you imagine what computers and the internet will be like in 20 years time? Something completely different might replace the likes of Facebook and Twitter. There might be technology we could never envision. It will be hard for the law to keep up.

Given all these issues, it’s unlikely that the Online Harms Bill will do much good. Most online harms happen in the real world too. Unfortunately, the government doesn’t have the power to legislate away every bad thing on earth. My heart doesn’t exactly bleed for the social media companies. They can afford to pay any fines or compensation. My concern is about ordinary people being censored. To many people, social media is like a casual conversation with a friend. But people are now being held to the same standards as professional journalists reporting on television or in a newspaper. The Online Harms Bill would only hurt people’s right to free expression, while not actually solving online harms. It is a naive and poorly thought out bill that has the potential to cause untold damage. Let’s hope it doesn’t become law.

See previous post
See next post
See older posts

If you enjoyed this article, please consider making a donation to support the site.