Tackling Online Abuse
Petitions Committee
Closed
Inquiry
The Petitions Committee has launched an inquiry into tackling online abuse, to consider issues raised in a number of petitions from the last Parliament and to follow up on the Committee’s previous inquiry into online abuse and the experiences of disabled people. The inquiry will resume in the wake of …
Read more
22
Recommendations
7
Conclusions
1
Report
5
Oral sessions
5
Events
Activity timeline 12 events
28 Mar
2022
2022
1 Feb
2022
2022
Report published
1 Dec
2021
2021
Oral evidence
1 Dec
2021
2021
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · Room 6, Palace of Westminster
23 Nov
2021
2021
Oral evidence
23 Nov
2021
2021
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · Room 16, Palace of Westminster
16 Nov
2021
2021
Oral evidence
16 Nov
2021
2021
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · Room 15, Palace of Westminster
2 Nov
2021
2021
Oral evidence
2 Nov
2021
2021
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · The Grimond Room, Portcullis House
2 Jul
2020
2020
Oral evidence
2 Jul
2020
2020
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · Virtual meeting
Oral evidence sessions 5 sessions
1 Dec 2021
View on parliament.uk
Chris Philp MP · Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
Orla MacRae · Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
23 Nov 2021
View on parliament.uk
Dr Nicholas Hoggard · Law Commission
Katy Minshall · Twitter
Professor Penney Lewis · The Law Commission
Rebecca Stimson · Meta
Theo Bertram · TikTok
16 Nov 2021
View on parliament.uk
Tackling Online Abuse
Andy Burrows · NSPCC
Dr Bertie Vidgen · The Alan Turing Institute
Ellen Judson · Demos
Seyi Akiwowo · Glitch
Stephen Kinsella OBE · Clean up the Internet
William Perrin OBE · Carnegie Trust UK
2 Nov 2021
View on parliament.uk
Tackling Online Abuse
Chara Bakalis · Oxford Brookes University
Danny Stone MBE · Antisemitism Policy Trust
Dr Joe Mulhall · HOPE not hate
Matthew Harrison · The Royal Mencap Society
Nancy Kelley · Stonewall
Ruth Smeeth · Index on Censorship
2 Jul 2020
View on parliament.uk
Amy Price
Katie Price
Reports 1 report · click to expand
| Title | HC No. | Published | Items | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Second Report - Tackling online abuse | HC 766 | 1 Feb 2022 | 29 | Responded |
Recommendations & Conclusions
6 results
4
Recommendation
Rejected
Second Report - Tackling online ab…
It is appropriate for legal but harmful content to be included in the scope of...
It is appropriate for legal but harmful content to be included in the scope of the Online Safety Bill. The balance of evidence we heard suggests that it is necessary to address this content in the Bill to help protect …
Read more
Government Response
The government rejects including a comprehensive indication of harmful content in primary legislation, stating they will use secondary legislation to designate priority harmful content after consulting with Ofcom. This approach aims to balance certainty for businesses with the flexibility to adapt to emerging harms.
6
Recommendation
Rejected
Second Report - Tackling online ab…
We recommend that the Online Safety Bill should include a statutory duty for the Government...
We recommend that the Online Safety Bill should include a statutory duty for the Government to consult with civil society organisations representing children and users who are most affected by online abuse on the legislation’s ongoing effectiveness at tackling online …
Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the recommendation for a statutory duty to consult civil society, explaining that the Secretary of State has flexibility to consult as appropriate and Ofcom already has extensive consultation duties under the Bill.
11
Recommendation
Rejected
Second Report - Tackling online ab…
Abusive content hosted on smaller platforms can play a significant role in helping to encourage...
Abusive content hosted on smaller platforms can play a significant role in helping to encourage prejudicial attitudes or even real-world harm. Failure to address this content would risk significantly undermining the potential impact of the proposed online safety legislation in …
Read more
Government Response
The government rejects the recommendation to apply duties for legal but harmful content to a wider range of platforms, arguing that it is not appropriate to require removal of legal content and that the current proportionate categorisation focuses on high-reach Category 1 services.
12
Recommendation
Rejected
Second Report - Tackling online ab…
We recommend that the Online Safety Bill requires smaller (non-category 1) platforms to take steps...
We recommend that the Online Safety Bill requires smaller (non-category 1) platforms to take steps to protect users from content that is legal but harmful to adults, with a particular focus on ensuring these platforms cannot be used to host …
Read more
Government Response
The government rejects requiring smaller platforms to tackle legal but harmful content to adults, stating it is not appropriate to mandate interference with legal content. They reaffirm the Bill's proportionate approach, which focuses these duties on high-reach Category 1 services.
14
Conclusion
Rejected
Second Report - Tackling online ab…
The Government’s regulatory proposals should encourage social media companies to prevent or reduce the risk...
The Government’s regulatory proposals should encourage social media companies to prevent or reduce the risk of users being harmed by abusive and hateful content in the first place, not just remove or otherwise deal with such content as it arises. …
Read more
Government Response
The government rejects reformulating the regulatory framework, arguing its current design creates specific duties for platforms to assess and mitigate risks for different harm categories, and provides proportionate systems to remove illegal and child-harming content. They believe this approach is effective and clear, rather than a broad foundational duty for proactive adult protection.
15
Recommendation
Rejected
Second Report - Tackling online ab…
We support calls for the Online Safety Bill to include a foundational duty on platforms...
We support calls for the Online Safety Bill to include a foundational duty on platforms to protect users from reasonably foreseeable risks of harm identified in their risk assessments, including harm arising from abusive content that is legal but harmful …
Read more
Government Response
The government rejects the recommendation for a single foundational duty to protect users from foreseeable harm, arguing it would create an uncertain operating environment. However, it states the Bill already requires service providers to assess risks linked to service design and user functionalities.