Tomorrow should be a watershed moment for children and families as the Online Safety Act comes into effect. But regrettably, it feels as if we are going backwards. The regulator Ofcom has decided to deploy timidity where ambition is needed. Rather than focusing on reducing harm and preventing tragedies, its approach seems aimed at minimising the economic costs for tech firms cleaning up the harm they have caused.
Instead of prioritising the fundamental principles of child safety, one minister indicated that the codes coming into force were consulted on to make them “judicial review proof”. Legal caution trumps children’s safety.
This is not what parliament envisaged when it passed the Online Safety Act. It is certainly not what bereaved families campaigned for. The new measures offer only cursory protection from suicide and self-harm content and demonstrate how Ofcom has failed to act quickly on the evolving and escalating online threats facing young people.
Teenagers are no longer at risk only from being exposed to suicide ideation and self-harm content by aggressive algorithms, a preventable harm that cost my daughter Molly her life. Vulnerable young people are now being targeted by appalling online groups, coercing them into self-harm and even suicide. The FBI has issued two warnings about these groups and last week warned of a “steep increase” in their activity. Europol and Canadian law enforcement have raised similar alarms.
Global law enforcement agencies are clear that some young people, often struggling with their mental health, are being groomed to commit violent acts against themselves and others on video or live streams. These groups are driven by the same “fluid ideologies” and violent motives that have been thrust into the spotlight by Axel Rudakubana and the horrific events in Southport.
Despite clear warnings about this growing threat, Ofcom has inexplicably chosen not to act. Tech companies won’t face a single targeted measure to tackle suicide and self-harm offences in the codes that can be enforced from tomorrow. Because of the structural weaknesses in the act, Ofcom wouldn’t be able to fix this error for another 18 months, even if it did decide to act.
In the face of this inaction, the government should intervene. This is the message I delivered to the prime minister when we recently met. So far, this government has failed to grasp the nettle. The technology secretary, Peter Kyle, has issued ambiguous and confused promises to improve legislation he himself has described as “unsatisfactory” and “uneven”. In the face of urgent preventable harm happening on this government’s watch, last week he set out a vision for “piecemeal” improvements.
I want to be clear that the secretary of state’s inaction and inertia will cost more young lives. His proposals are the sticking-plaster politics that the prime minister has rightly said he rejects. Bereaved parents are now losing trust in Kyle. We very much believe the public is on our side – 85% of parents want stronger laws. Parents want the government to act decisively on the side of children and families.
A decision to fix and strengthen the Online Safety Act also makes economic sense. The government’s economic modelling shows that stronger regulation, which reduces exposure to online harm by 15%, could deliver an economic return of £4bn every year. Online safety is not just good for society; it is also good for growth.
Of course, there are those who refute this, putting the free expression of platforms over reasonable and necessary measures to protect children from harm. Among them is a hawkish White House, which has issued an executive order that instructs officials to “recommend appropriate actions to counter” the Online Safety Act.
I’m increasingly concerned that the government could stall further vital online safety measures to appease the White House, dodge tariffs or even chase a trade deal. But UK parents are watching, too. They do not want their children’s safety jeopardised by an exported agenda written by tech libertarians and JD Vance. They expect to be heard by their own government. Polling shows that nine in 10 people support policies that prioritise children’s safety online, even if it means tech companies investing significantly less in the UK.
Parents will judge the prime minister by how he responds to the preventable harm that is now happening on his watch. They will judge him harshly if he fails this crucial test. But they will also stand by him and cheer him on if he takes decisive action to ensure online safety for children.
-
Ian Russell is an internet safety campaigner and chair of the Molly Rose Foundation
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
