Online Harms White Paper - Government Consultation - My response

I recently joined the Open Rights Group as a member and was asked to respond to the Governments Online Harms regulation plans within their open consultation which ends the 1st of July - Online Harms White Paper - Government Consultation 

Below is my response. Please do the same and keep the UK free from unelected regulators that could harm freeness of speech. 

While we all agree there is a need to tackle and deal with both illegal and harmful content online this must be put into the balance with our basic human rights of freedom of expression. 

Users of social media, blogging sites and sites that encourage this freedom of expression need to be able to defend their right to publish legal content. 

This issue with a regulatory framework, like the one you are suggesting, is that online companies will take the easy route to compliance. This is that they will create automated, indiscriminate algorithms and technology that just takes down content that 'might' fall under the online harms act. 

Whilst this might be fine for the clearly illegal content its the content that sits in the grey box of not being illegal but may cause harm. There is too much ambiguity here and with that, there is room for massive error and the closing down of legitimate content. 

Digital companies will take the easy route out as we see YouTube and others doing now when it comes to claims of Copyright. They do not contact the person being claimed against, they do not check the validity of the claim, they just delete the content, or de-monetise or de-platform the user. 

This can become a form of censorship that could mean individual users could get de-platformed for their point of view.  

Let's just look at the term 'disinformation' who defines what this is, is there a clear definition and who decides that boundary. We could say political propaganda and the PR business around it is 'disinformation'.

We also have to ask the question where is the task force to tackle those perpetrating the  'illegal harms'. 

This legislation seems tailored to tackling the platforms and the removal of content. But where are the plans to tackle those that are clearly committing illegal acts of harm?

My fear is also for those who unwittingly promote or forward on 'disinformation' as you will see if you read the demos report "Warring Songs: Information Operations in the Digital Age" shows how a)Fact checking alone is not enough as it only deals with a small % of the issue and b)people can unwittingly be drawn into promoting content from these Information Operations. These people could be de-platformed, silenced or censored which is an infringement of their human rights.

A quote from the Newstatesmen summaries it well "Disinformation is particularly blurry, and will likely prove contentious for a future regulator. The DCMS spells out some expectations, including “promoting authoritative news sources”, and suppressing content “disputed by reputable fact-checking services”.

How far should the government go in determining what fictions are acceptable? When does a legitimate hunch become a conspiracy theory? These are political questions that require considered – and democratic – responses. While the government’s move towards regulating the internet is a welcome step, there will be many who look at these proposals with justified suspicion."

The scheme pushes towards automated takedowns and speed, both of which are likely to come at the cost of accuracy. Accuracy is as important as removal for a scheme to be legitimate.

This process of using an Independent Regulator is also very questionable. They will not be elected but will have great power to decide what is free expressions it protects and what it restricts. This does not promote fair and accurate decisions. 

The UK does not, and should not, allow state regulation of the press, allowing them to freely challenge and comment on issues, why would we not allow the same freedoms to millions of citizens and their lawful online speech. 

Read more about Open Rights Group’s position here:

View the full DCMS consultation:


There is also no explanation as to how harms and risk are being defined which is a central question of the duty of care. This could be too wide and impact legitimate online speech.

The proposal is also unrealistically vast and broad which will make them almost impossible to implement without a scatter gun approach that forces companies to take down legitimate content with no route to complain by the user. A more focused rights-based approach on social media as promoted by the Open Rights Group makes more sense. 

Before going ahead with such a scheme there needs to be more public and industry consultation in order to facilitate discussions on a better way forward. 

This article was written by Sam our Founder, Editor and Chief Behavioural Anarchist. Sam is a Data-Driven Marketing and Behavioural Communication’s Strategist based in Telford, Shropshire in the UK.

Here he is a Writer on Behavioural Insights, Media, Communications, Data Science & Marketing Technology. Keeping a watchful eye and investigating the misuse of technology and behavioural science by big business, media, and politicians in manipulating online narratives to sway public opinion. All opinions are his own. :

All images on this site used under CC0 License
✓ Free for personal and commercial use
✓ No attribution required, however, we try to contribute to the artist if known.

Join our social community today! Be part of the conversation.

We have a wealth of digital, direct and data-driven marketing content for people looking to shape change by setting up their own business, social enterprise or cause. Membership is free and all we ask in turn is that you be part of the conversation with an aim to shaping positive change in the world. 

Editorial Team published an article
Estimated two minutes read: Article Marketing Is Important: Series Marketing Your Cause
Article marketing has been used for years. From media publications, it has shifted to the web which many experts say is timeless thus making it very important in…
Editorial Team published an article
You might be told that you are expressing something through body language that you haven't said. Maybe you don't agree that you were saying that, even nonverbally. Many mistakes can be made when trying to interpret body language.
The most notorious…
Editorial Team posted a blog post
Social media group says Trump associate is connected to network that included fake accounts

Another sign of the times and how we need to fine tune our sense making abilities of critical analysis: Facebook takes down disinformation campaign linked…
Editorial Team posted a blog post
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, COO Sheryl Sandberg and other Facebook leaders met on Tuesday with groups that have led the call for what is now a widespread advertiser boycott of Facebook's platform.

Says it all really. Facebook paying lip service…
Editorial Team posted a blog post
Conservative sites like Newsmax and Washington Examiner have published Middle East hot takes from “experts” who are actually fake personas pushing propaganda.

Conservative sites like Newsmax and Washington Examiner have published Middle East hot t…
Editorial Team posted a blog post
Industry hits back at PM’s comments, describing them as ‘huge slap in the face’ for sector

Absolutely ridiculous. Now Boris is trying to pull a Trump by gaslighting the UK public. Our memories are not that short that we forgot your gross negligenc…
Editorial Team posted a blog post
Hundreds of companies around the world have joined a temporary ad boycott against Facebook Inc., but Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg says he’s not worried...

Maybe Facebook has had its day!…
Editorial Team published an article
Estimated two minutes read: An Overview of the Concept behind RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds stands for Really Simple Syndication. Other times it is also called Rich Site Summary. But both have the same meanings. The first time you see this, it may appear comp…
Jul 3
Editorial Team posted a blog post
The Prime Minister suggested the 'New Deal' will pump £34bn into the NHS, but that’s not the case.

Fact check on Boris claims for support the NHS
Jul 2
Editorial Team posted a blog post
Banned for "hateful conduct."

Finally a tech company doing something about hateful content and it doesn’t matter who the offender is.
Trump suspended from twitch and posts removed. Nice work.…
Jun 30
Editorial Team posted a blog post

A number of our readers have pointed out that Wetherspoons staff are asking people NOT to boycott the chain as they feel that such a stance would only hurt the workers and not Tim Martin himself.

We understand where these comments co…
Jun 28
Editorial Team posted a blog post
Company follows Unilever’s lead after platform announces changes to how it handles hate speech

Facebook policy changes fail to quell advertiser revolt as Coca-Cola pulls ads
Jun 27
Editorial Team published an article
Two minutes read: A Return on Your Investment and More with Article Marketing: Series Marketing Your Cause
Most businesses want to get a return on their investment in the soonest possible time, charities, not for profits, social enterprises, activis…
Jun 26
Editorial Team posted a blog post
After figures show the UK's internet use has reached record highs during lockdown, Google reveals the most popular searches:
Jun 24
Editorial Team posted a blog post
Dealing in bots and deepfakes, these net artists are challenging big tech.

This is awesome and exactly what I am about right now. Use art to hack and subvert digital media as a form of activism…
Jun 23
Editorial Team posted a blog post
After hoping for a major re-introduction to the campaign trail, the president was reportedly raging over an 'underwhelming' turnout at his Tulsa rally

Trump furious at rally turnout 😂This is brilliant and a great example of political activism usin…
Jun 22