Thread by @WebDevLaw

Report is out. First impression is that it is rather pleased with itself. Humility in public service isn't a thing these days.

First takes follow, from the freedom of speech / proportionality / govt overreach perspectives I've focused on for 2 1/2 years now...

1) Recommends that e2e should be identified as a specific risk factor in risk assessments - does not go hardline against it, as many have recommended, but it's not out of the woods yet;

2) Recommends that anonymity be preserved, but that platforms discuss it and any mitigations in their risk assessment, and wants ICO to come up with a code of practice on privacy protecting anonymity (there is a lot of job creation for the ICO and Ofcom in this report, folks);

3) Wants electoral disinformation included in the Bill, or the Elections Bill, with some focus on data targeting a la Cambridge Analytica;

4) Avoids the issue of the Bill requiring age verification or age assurance for all services as part of the risk assessment process regardless of risk/proportionality, and goes all in on further supporting the AV and AA sectors within a code of practice on AA (more job creation);

5) Recommends replacing Clause 11 (e.g. any content which could be subjectively harmful to an adult) with a requirement to identify and mitigate content already defined in criminal law or which should be, per the Law Commission review (this is a big win for freedom of speech);

6) Acknowledges that giving the Secretary of State (currently, Nadine) powers to modify codes of practice, to instruct Ofcom to enforce them, and to exempt specific individual services from regulation gives her too much power and these clauses must be removed (good);

7) Journalistic content, what constitutes it, and what should be exempt from content moderation of it is still a dumpster fire;

8) They listened to me 🙌 on senior management liability - recommends liability only for systematic and serious failure to comply with reporting requirements & regulatory cooperation, as opposed to indulging wild west sheriff fantasies of content moderation through arrests;

9) Recommends a new joint committee on digital regulation to provide Parliamentary scrutiny of this Bill and other initiatives: but that will require them to scrutinise what is happening under these laws, not grandstanding or brainstorming about what they might want to happen;

10) Finally, there's discussion of the need to tie Ofcom's work to human rights standards such Article 10 of the ECHR, which is the HRA 1998; no discussion of what the plan B is for throwing out those babies with the European human rights bathwater.

11) Overwhelming impression is that the report focused on the individual issues raised. At the end, you still have a massive, sweeping, complex regulation, requiring multiple regulators, processes, codes, directives, and oversight, and that's before you even think of compliance.

12) I'm still unemployed and bored off my ****, hire me plz, thanks

13) I forgot to hashtag this thread #OnlineSafetyBill, because coffee.

14) Can confirm that "Parliament listens to me, you know" has no impact on a Glaswegian teenager.

15) The committee report was laid in the House yesterday and the debate was...stiff, muted, and free of bluster, rhetoric, and foot-stomping. It's as if after years of using the internet for grandstanding and headlines, they've realised this stuff is hard. hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-1…