The British government is close to approving stricter measures for a new online safety bill that could hold tech CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg criminally liable for harmful content consumed by children on social media.
To be more specific, the bill’s amendment proposes jail terms of up to two years for tech executives who fail to protect children from harmful content on the internet.
The bill states that technology companies must “remove illegal content,” which includes “child sexual abuse,” “controlling or coercive behavior,” “extreme sexual violence,” “fraud,” “hate crime,” “inciting violence,” “illegal immigration and people smuggling,” “promoting or facilitating suicide,” “promoting self-harm,” “revenge porn,” “sexual exploitation,” and “terrorism.”
Companies in the tech industry will have to take measures to “limit the exposure of children to inappropriate and potentially harmful content.” Furthermore, they will be expected to “enforce age limits and age checking measures” and “publish risk assessments.”
Penalties as high as $22 million or “10% of their annual global turnover,” whichever is greater, could be imposed on tech companies that fail to implement these safeguards.
If top executives “fail to comply with information requests from [regulators], criminal action will be taken,” as stated by the British government.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of the United Kingdom has settled differences with Conservative Party members who wanted amendments to the Online Safety Bill. The bill is scheduled to be presented to the House of Lords in the spring, and it is widely anticipated that it will be passed before the end of the UK Parliament’s session in November.
If the stricter restrictions weren’t added to the bill, Sunak’s governing coalition would have been in danger of being defeated by his own party, according to Reuters.
Conservative lawmaker and veteran Bill Cash praised the compromise reached with ministers, telling the BBC that top executives in the tech industry “will not want to run the risk of going to jail.”
The United Kingdom, like the European Union and other nations, has struggled to find a way to safeguard social media users, and especially children, from potentially harmful content without chilling free expression.
Unlike the United States, the United Kingdom does not guarantee its citizens the right to freely express themselves in its constitution.
They say that tech companies in Silicon Valley are keeping a close eye on the bill as it makes its way through the British parliament.
Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales called the proposed legislation “tyranny” earlier this month on Twitter.
When first introduced in November, the bill mandated the removal of “legal but harmful” content from social media platforms. Unfortunately, legislators ultimately decided to scrap those protections for fear that they would stifle free speech.
Conservative lawmaker and veteran Bill Cash praised the compromise reached with ministers, telling the BBC that top executives in the tech industry “will not want to run the risk of going to jail.”
The United Kingdom, like the European Union and other nations, has struggled to find a way to safeguard social media users, and especially children, from potentially harmful content without chilling free expression.
Unlike the United States, the United Kingdom does not guarantee its citizens the right to freely express themselves in its constitution.
They say that tech companies in Silicon Valley are keeping a close eye on the bill as it makes its way through the British parliament.
Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales called the proposed legislation “tyranny” earlier this month on Twitter.
In its initial November introduction, the bill mandated that social media platforms take down posts that were “legal but harmful.” Concerned that it would stifle free speech, lawmakers ultimately voted to strike down the provisions.
It said that laws enacted to ensure children’s safety online wouldn’t dictate which types of legal content should be censored, but rather would ensure that companies removed content that was illegal or prohibited in their terms of service.
Digital Secretary Michelle Donelan claimed that, contrary to rumors to the contrary, she had actually increased protection for minors by requiring companies to strictly enforce their own age restrictions.
She made her comments on BBC radio, saying that companies “can’t just say ‘Yes, we only allow children over 13 to join our platform,’ then allow 10-year-olds and actively promote it to them.”
We’re working to prevent that from happening.
A rise in the prevalence of eating disorders, depression, and suicidal ideation among children and adolescents has been linked to Meta, the parent company of social media apps Facebook and Instagram.
An ex-Facebook employee named Frances Haugen released documents in 2021 that show Facebook’s software engineers knew their product was having negative psychological effects on children and young people, especially adolescent girls.
The lawsuits against Meta claim that the company opted to disregard the findings of their engineers and continue exposing children to images that contributed to the development of mental disorders in the interest of maximizing profits.
Similarly, broad lawsuits have been filed against TikTok and Snapchat, both of which are extremely popular video-sharing platforms.
