2nd Report – Social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms
Select Committee
Science, Innovation and Technology Committee
HC 441
11 July 2025
Recommendations
2 results
18
Rejected
Submit annual report to Parliament on the state of online misinformation trends.
Recommendation
The broad scale—and serious impact—of misinformation online requires greater transparency and accountability from the government. In line with our Principle 1, the government should submit an annual report to Parliament on the state of misinformation online, tracking trends and issues …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the recommendation for an annual report on misinformation, citing national security concerns that such a report would expose vulnerabilities and hinder operations. They state they already provide updates through existing parliamentary channels.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details
34
Rejected
Establish new arms-length body or extend Ofcom's powers to regulate digital advertising supply chain.
Recommendation
Tackling online harm means addressing the principles that incentivise and monetise its spread. In line with Principle 3, responsibility, the government should create a new arms-length body—not funded by industry—to regulate and scrutinise the process of digital advertising, covering the …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the recommendation to create a new arms-length body or extend Ofcom's powers to specifically regulate the monetization of harmful and misleading content. It explains that the Online Safety Act focuses on systems and processes for illegal and child-harmful content, and extending Ofcom's remit to broader 'harmful content' would require difficult definitions and could have negative implications, instead highlighting existing industry-led schemes.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details
Conclusions (5) Observations and findings — click to expand
3
Conclusion
Rejected
The Online Safety Act was not designed to tackle misinformation—we heard that even if it had been fully implemented, it would have made little difference to the spread of misleading content that drove violence and hate in summer 2024. Therefore, the Act fails to keep UK citizens safe from a …
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the potential impact of online misinformation but defends the Online Safety Act's proportionate approach, stating it focuses on illegal content and content harmful to children while balancing freedom of expression, and explains how providers are required to tackle such content.
20
Conclusion
Rejected
To ensure true responsibility from platform companies, as per Principle 3, Ofcom and DSIT should confirm that services are required to act on all risks identified in risk assessments, regardless of whether they are included in Ofcom’s Codes of Practice. (Recommendation, Paragraph 49)
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the recommendation to require services to act on all identified risks regardless of Codes of Practice, stating it is not possible within the Online Safety Act framework. They clarify that compliance is achieved by adopting measures in the Codes and believe existing guidance ensures significant unmanaged risks are addressed.
21
Conclusion
Rejected
The Online Safety Act does not do enough to address the risks posed by small platforms due to its exclusive focus on size. Ofcom should create an additional category to cover ‘small but risky’ platforms, based on analysis of the role that harmful smaller platforms can play in the online …
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the recommendation to create a new category for 'small but risky' platforms, stating they disagree that the Online Safety Act (OSA) is insufficient. They assert that the OSA's main measures already apply to such services, and a dedicated taskforce is actively driving compliance among high-risk smaller services.
35
Conclusion
Rejected
To tackle the incentive behind amplified misinformation—namely, the monetisation of harmful content—there should be clear and enforceable standards for digital advertising market processes, as well as advertising content. Following our Principles 1, 3 and 5, government should ask the Advertising Standards Authority to establish comprehensive guidelines for 59 all actors …
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the recommendation to ask the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to establish comprehensive guidelines for the digital advertising ecosystem. It states that setting standards for processes in the digital ecosystem falls outside the ASA's remit, instead highlighting the industry-led 'Gold Standard' scheme.
37
Conclusion
Rejected
There are insufficient disincentives for bad practice in the digital advertising market. Bad actors can exploit the ecosystem, monetising harmful content through major platforms. Following Principle 3, Ofcom should be empowered to give penalty notices to platforms when they allow harmful content to be monetised through their services. These penalties …
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the recommendation to empower Ofcom to issue penalty notices specifically for platforms monetizing harmful content. It clarifies that the Online Safety Act enables Ofcom to take enforcement action for failures in systems and processes related to illegal content and content harmful to children, but not for individual pieces of content or for broader 'harmful content' as this would require new definitions and have wider implications.