PM urged to keep independent appeals process for removing harmful online content
Baroness Newlove says the Online Safety Bill as it presently stands risks harm to victims by not including an independent appeals process.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Government has been urged to keep an independent appeals process for removing harmful online content from platforms such as TikTok and OnlyFans.
Conservative peer Baroness Newlove has written to Rishi Sunak and the Government to express concern about the lack of inclusion of such a provision for victims in the Online Safety Bill, which is now at report stage in the House of Lords.
Currently, the video-sharing platform regulation requires UK-established platforms – such as Snapchat, OnlyFans, TikTok and Twitch – to provide individuals with an impartial appeals process for decisions relating to the removal of content that has remained online after being reported directly to the platform.
But Baroness Newlove says this will be removed by the incoming Online Safety Bill as it presently stands, risking serious harm to thousands of victims.
We believe thousands of individuals will be left at risk without this provision and we encourage you to listen to the advice, expertise, and data of those who deal with these types of reports daily
The Government has recently included an amendment to the Bill that requires regulator Ofcom to carry out a review over whether an independent appeals process or designated body is needed in two years’ time.
But campaigners say this is not enough and will leave victims waiting for a resolution over content that platforms chose not to remove in the interim.
The letter, written on behalf of fellow peers, victims of harmful content and the UK Safer Internet Centre, says: “We believe an individual’s right to independently appeal decisions about harmful online content should be included as the bill in its current form … does not meet the UK’s aim of making the UK the safest place to be online.”
Baroness Newlove also wrote that peers are “incredibly frustrated and disappointed by the Government’s blatant inaction on this matter”.
She criticised Viscount Camrose’s response to questions on what individuals will be able to do if they want to appeal against a decision not to remove content.
“We believe thousands of individuals will be left at risk without this provision and we encourage you to listen to the advice, expertise, and data of those who deal with these types of reports daily,” she added.
“An independent appeals process should not only be an inclusion in the Online Safety Bill – but a priority.
“This cannot be kicked down the line for a future government to deal with – this must happen now.”
It comes as the UK Safer Internet Centre and the 5Rights Foundation, both non-governmental organisations that campaign for online safety, have been working with peers on a costed model for an independent appeals ecosystem in the UK.
We do not need to wait to see if this is required, we need to see this now
The groups estimate that the UK will receive 170,000 actionable appeals per year across some of the most popular online platforms, costing £116 each to resolve.
Last year, digital minister Chris Philp argued that the reason no independent ombudsman had been included is “a matter of scale”.
“The volume of individual complaints generated about social media platforms is just vast,” he told MPs.
David Wright, chief executive of the UK Safer Internet Centre, said: “The Government’s recent proposed amendment to the Online Safety Bill does not go far enough in protecting people from online harm.
“It is positive that the Government has recognised the issue by proposing this amendment but it is unacceptable that victims will have to wait for a two-year period for Ofcom to review whether an independent appeals process is required.
“We know that this process is required now.
“We have thousands of victims contacting our helplines every year asking us to support them in removing content that is causing them significant harm.
“We do not need to wait to see if this is required, we need to see this now.”
If Ofcom finds the existing provisions are not sufficient, then the Government will be empowered to introduce regulations that impose a duty on the largest companies to provide alternative impartial dispute resolution procedures, similar to those in the current video-sharing platform regime
A Government spokesperson said: “The Online Safety Bill includes strong duties relating to content reporting and complaints, already benefiting users directly, providing them with effective methods of redress.
“However, we have listened to concerns and tabled new amendments that will require Ofcom to comprehensively review these provisions.
“If Ofcom finds the existing provisions are not sufficient, then the Government will be empowered to introduce regulations that impose a duty on the largest companies to provide alternative impartial dispute resolution procedures, similar to those in the current video-sharing platform regime.”