Internet sites could be fined or blocked if they fail to tackle "online harms" such as terrorist propaganda and child abuse, under government plans.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has proposed an independent watchdog that will write a "code of practice" for tech companies.

Senior managers could be held liable for breaches, with a possible levy on the industry to fund the regulator.

But critics say the plans threaten freedom of speech.

The Online Harms White Paper is a joint proposal from the DCMS and the Home Office. A public consultation on the plans will run for 12 weeks.

The paper suggests:

establishing an independent regulator that can write a "code of practice" for social networks and internet companies

giving the regulator enforcement powers including the ability to fine companies that break the rules

considering additional enforcement powers such as the ability to fine company executives and force internet service providers to block sites that break the rules

Outlining the proposals, Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright said: "The era of self-regulation for online companies is over.

"Voluntary actions from industry to tackle online harms have not been applied consistently or gone far enough."

Discussing potential penalties on BBC Breakfast, he said: "If you look at the fines available to the Information Commissioner around the GDPR rules, that could be up to 4% of company's turnover... we think we should be looking at something comparable here."

What are 'online harms'?

The plans cover a range of issues that are clearly defined in law such as spreading terrorist content, child sex abuse, so-called revenge pornography, hate crimes, harassment and the sale of illegal goods.

But it also covers harmful behaviour that has a less clear legal definition such as cyber-bullying, trolling and the spread of fake news and disinformation.

It says social networks must tackle material that advocates self-harm and suicide, which became a prominent issue after 14-year-old Molly Russell took her own life in 2017.

After she died her family found distressing material about depression and suicide on her Instagram account. Molly's father Ian Russell holds the social media giant partly responsible for her death.

Mr Russell told the BBC that the white paper was "a very important step" towards making the internet a safer place.

"I think after what we've been through and sadly what so many families go through, the urgency is huge," he said.

However he added that the paper could have contained more specific guidance for parents.

"For example, there's not very much about age limits and ratings - it seems to me lots of companies self-rate their apps and their content and that makes it very difficult for a parent to know how much they can trust those platforms," he said.

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Ian Russell partly blames Instagram for his daughter taking her own life and says "the urgency is huge" to protect children online

Home Secretary Sajid Javid said tech giants and social media companies had a moral duty "to protect the young people they profit from".

"Despite our repeated calls to action, harmful and illegal content - including child abuse and terrorism - is still too readily available online.

What do the proposals say?

The plans call for an independent regulator to hold internet companies to account.

It would be funded by the tech industry. The government has not decided whether a new body will be established, or an existing one handed new powers.

The regulator will define a "code of best practice" that social networks and internet companies must adhere to.

As well as Facebook, Twitter and Google, the rules would apply to messaging services such as Snapchat and cloud storage services.

The regulator will have the power to fine companies and publish notices naming and shaming those that break the rules.

The government says it is also considering fines for individual company executives and making search engines remove links to offending websites.

It is also consulting over blocking harmful websites.

On the face of it, this is a tough new regime - and ministers have acted upon the demands of charities like the NSPCC which want what they regard as the "Wild West Web" to be tamed.

But a closer look reveals all sorts of issues yet to be settled.

Will a whole new organisation be given the huge job of regulating the internet? Or will the job be handed to the media regulator Ofcom?

What sort of sanctions will be available to the regulator? And will they apply equally to giant social networks and to small organisations such as parents' message boards?

Most tricky of all is how the regulator is going to rule on material that is not illegal but may still be considered harmful.

Take this example. Misinformation is listed as a potential harm, and Health Secretary Matt Hancock has talked about the damaging effects anti-vaccination campaigners have had.

So will the regulator tell companies that their duty of care means they must remove such material?

The government now plans to consult on its proposals. It may yet find that its twin aims of making the UK both the safest place in the world online and the best to start a digital business are mutually incompatible.

What will the 'code of practice' contain?

Image copyright Getty Images

The white paper offers some suggestions that could be included in the code of best practice.

It suggests the spread of fake news could be tackled by forcing social networks to employ fact-checkers and promote legitimate news sources.

But the regulator will be allowed to define the code by itself.

The white paper also says social media companies should produce annual reports revealing how much harmful content has been found on their platforms.

The children's charity NSPCC has been urging new regulation since 2017 and has repeatedly called for a legal duty of care to be placed on social networks.

A spokeswoman said: "Time's up for the social networks. They've failed to police themselves and our children have paid the price."

How have the social networks reacted?

Image copyright PA

Rebecca Stimson, Facebook's head of UK policy, said in a statement: "New regulations are needed so that we have a standardised approach across platforms and private companies aren't making so many important decisions alone.

"New rules for the internet should protect society from harm while also supporting innovation, the digital economy and freedom of speech."

Twitter's head of UK public policy Katy Minshall said in a statement: "We look forward to engaging in the next steps of the process, and working to strike an appropriate balance between keeping users safe and preserving the open, free nature of the internet."

TechUK, an umbrella group representing the UK's technology industry, said the government must be "clear about how trade-offs are balanced between harm prevention and fundamental rights".

Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group, said the government's proposals would "create state regulation of the speech of millions of British citizens".

Matthew Lesh, head of research at free market think tank the Adam Smith Institute, went further.

He said: "The government should be ashamed of themselves for leading the western world in internet censorship.

"The proposals are a historic attack on freedom of speech and the free press.

"At a time when Britain is criticising violations of freedom of expression in states like Iran, China and Russia, we should not be undermining our freedom at home."

And freedom of speech campaigners Article 19 warned that the government "must not create an environment that encourages the censorship of legitimate expression".

A spokesman said it opposed any duty of care being imposed on internet platforms.

They said that would "inevitably require them to proactively monitor their networks and take a restrictive approach to content removal".

"Such actions could violate individuals' rights to freedom of expression and privacy," they added.

The BBC has a digital guide to life online for parents and young people: BBC Own It</s>The UK government has suggested new online safety laws that could see internet sites fined and their bossed held personally accountable if they fail to protect users from harmful content like terrorist propaganda and child abuse.

The 100-page Online Harms White Paper from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and Home Office proposes that an independent watchdog will write a "code of practice" for tech companies to abide by.

Companies that flout the rules could face big fines, with bosses also held personally accountable under the new rules if they go ahead.

"The government wants the UK to be the safest place in the world to go online, and the best place to start and grow a digital business," the White Paper states. "Given the prevalence of illegal and harmful content online, and the level of public concern about online harms, not just in the UK but worldwide, we believe that the digital economy urgently needs a new regulatory framework to improve our citizens’ safety online. This will rebuild public confidence and set clear expectations of companies, allowing our citizens to enjoy more safely the benefits that online services offer. "

The UK Culture Secretary, Jeremy Wright, told BBC Breakfast after revealing the new proposals that the fines could be comparable to those available to the Information Commissioner around GDPR rules. That could be up to 4 per cent of a company's turnover.

The White Paper goes on to recommend a regulatory framework for online safety that companies and users would clearly be able to see and understand.

The UK government plans to run a 12-week public consultation on the proposals.

The new White Paper comes following the death of 14-year-old schoolgirl Molly Russell, which her parents said came after she had viewed online material on depression and suicide.

Charities, like the NSPCC, have welcomed the White Paper.

"For too long social networks have failed to prioritise children’s safety and left them exposed to grooming, abuse, and harmful content. So it’s high time they were forced to act through this legally binding duty to protect children, backed up with hefty punishments if they fail to do so," Peter Wanless, the company's CEO said in a statement.

However, some industry experts are concerned that there are still many questions left unanswered.

Those include whether the new rules apply to all sites in the UK, or merely the larger social networks, which body will regulate the rules and guidelines, and who will decide what is deemed harmful information and how the rules apply to it.

techUK, a body that represents around 900 UK tech companies, has also voiced its concerns:

"Some of the key pillars of the Government's approach remain too vague. It is vital that the new framework is effective, proportionate and predictable. Clear legal definitions that allow companies in scope to understand the law and therefore act quickly and with confidence will be key to the success of the new system."

The consultation closes on the 1 July 2019.</s>Social media and tech companies could be fined or blocked if they don’t protect users from harmful content under a new British government proposal.

The Online Harms White Paper is a joint proposal by the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) and the Home Office unveiled on Monday that aims to reduce the diffusion of harmful content on the Internet.

There will also be requirements for companies to tackle terrorist content and child sexual exploitation and abuse content.

British Prime Minister Theresa May said that while the Internet was good at keeping people connected it had not done enough to protect users from unwanted content.

"That is not good enough, and it is time to do things differently," May said in a statement. "We have listened to campaigners and parents, and are putting a legal duty of care on internet companies to keep people safe."

Why now? What triggered it?

Easy access to harmful material on the Internet has caused growing concern worldwide. Last month, the world was shocked by a streaming a shooting in two New Zealand mosques on Facebook Live.

Shortly after that, Australia said it would fine social media and web hosting companies and jail executives from these companies if this sort of material wasn’t removed “expeditiously”.

In the UK, there has been growing concern that harmful content on the Internet is particularly impacting the youth. The problem came into the spotlight after the death of 14-year-old Molly Russell who viewed online material on depression and suicide before taking her own life.

What does it entail?

Under the government's proposal, an independent regulator would be appointed to make sure the new laws are being followed and enforce a "best code of practice" to safeguard users from harmful content.

The regulator would be given the power to slap fines on social media companies if they fail to protect people from harmful content, block access to some websites, and make tech company executives liable for failing to block distribution of this type of content.

It would be funded by the tech industry, though the government has not decided whether to create a new body or hand over the power to an existing one.

The laws would apply to all social media platforms, hosting sites, public discussion forums, messaging services, and search engines, said a press release.

Digital Secretary Jeremy Wright said that online companies needed to be regulated because "voluntary actions from industry to tackle online harms have not been applied consistently or gone far enough."

”We want the UK to be the safest place in the world to go online, and the best place to start and grow a digital business and our proposals for new laws will help make sure everyone in our country can enjoy the Internet safely.”

While Home Secretary Sajid Javid called attention to the "moral duty" of tech giants and social media companies to "protect the young people they profit from."

“Despite our repeated calls to action, harmful and illegal content – including child abuse and terrorism - is still too readily available online.

“That is why we are forcing these firms to clean up their act once and for all. I made it my mission to protect our young people – and we are now delivering on that promise.”

Rebecca Stimson, Facebook’s head of UK policy said the new rules should strike a balance between protecting society and supporting innovation and free speech.

"These are complex issues to get right and we look forward to working with the government and parliament to ensure new regulations are effective," Stimson said in a statement.

While the paper represents a good step forward in limiting harmful content on the internet, TechUK, an industry trade group, said that some aspects remained too vague.

"It is vital that the new framework is effective, proportionate and predictable," TechUK said in a statement, adding not all concerns could be addressed through regulation.</s>Social media companies will be legally required to protect their users – with senior management held personally liable if they do not comply with new rules around harmful content, according to a long-awaited Government white paper.

The joint proposal on online harms from the Home Office and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) says a regulator will be appointed to ensure internet firms meet their responsibilities, which will be outlined in a mandatory duty of care.

The duty of care will require firms to take more responsibility for the safety of users and more actively tackle the harm caused by content or activity on their platforms.

The regulator will have the power to issue “substantial fines, block access to sites and potentially impose liability on individual members of senior management”, the proposal says.

The Government is currently consulting on whether to create a new regulator or use an existing one, such as Ofcom, to enforce the new rules.

The proposed measures are part of a Government plan to make the UK one of the safest places in the world to be online, and comes in response to concerns over the growth of violent content, encouraging suicide, disinformation and the exposure of children to cyberbullying and other inappropriate material online.

A number of charities and campaigners have called for greater regulation to be introduced, while several reports from MPs and other groups published this year have also supported the calls for a duty of care to be implemented.

Prime Minister Theresa May said the proposals were a sign the age of self-regulation for internet companies was over.

“The internet can be brilliant at connecting people across the world – but for too long these companies have not done enough to protect users, especially children and young people, from harmful content,” she said.

“That is not good enough, and it is time to do things differently. We have listened to campaigners and parents, and are putting a legal duty of care on internet companies to keep people safe.

“Online companies must start taking responsibility for their platforms, and help restore public trust in this technology.”

The proposed new laws will apply to any company that allows users to share or discover user-generated content or interact with each other online, the Government said, applicable to companies of all sizes from social media platforms to file hosting sites, forum, messaging services and search engines.

It also calls for powers to be given to a regulator to force internet firms to publish annual transparency reports on the harmful content on their platforms and how they are addressing it.

Companies including Facebook and Twitter already publish reports of this nature.

Last week, Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg told politicians in Ireland that the company would work with governments to establish new policies in a bid to regulate social media.

The Home Secretary, Sajid Javid added that tech firms had a “moral duty” to protect the young people they “profit from”.

“Despite our repeated calls to action, harmful and illegal content – including child abuse and terrorism – is still too readily available online,” he said.

“That is why we are forcing these firms to clean up their act once and for all. I made it my mission to protect our young people – and we are now delivering on that promise.”

A 12-week consultation of the proposals will now take place before the Government will publish its final proposals for legislation.

The Government said the proposed regulator would have a legal duty to pay due regard to innovation, as well as to protect users’ rights online.

Peter Wanless, chief executive of children’s charity the NSPCC – which has campaigned for regulation for the past two years – said the proposals would make the UK a “world pioneer” in protecting children online.

“For too long social networks have failed to prioritise children’s safety and left them exposed to grooming, abuse, and harmful content,” he said.

“So it’s high time they were forced to act through this legally binding duty to protect children, backed up with hefty punishments if they fail to do so.

“We are pleased that the Government has listened to the NSPCC’s detailed proposals and we are grateful to all those who supported our campaign.”

However, former culture secretary John Whittingdale warned ministers risked dragging people into a “draconian censorship regime” in their attempts to regulate internet firms.

Writing in the Mail on Sunday, he said he feared the plans could “give succour to Britain’s enemies”, giving them an excuse to further censor their own people.

“Countries such as China, Russia and North Korea, which allow no political dissent and deny their people freedom of speech, are also keen to impose censorship online, just as they already do on traditional media,” he said.

“This mooted new UK regulator must not give the despots an excuse to claim that they are simply following an example set by Britain, where civil liberties were first entrenched in Magna Carta 800 years ago,” he said.

Responding to the proposals, Facebook’s UK head of public policy Rebecca Stimson said: “The internet has transformed how billions of people live, work and connect with each other, but new forms of communication also bring huge challenges.

“We have responsibilities to keep people safe on our services and we share the Government’s commitment to tackling harmful content online. As Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook’s founder) said last month, new regulations are needed so that we have a standardised approach across platforms, and private companies aren’t making so many important decisions alone.”

She added that while Facebook had tripled the number of people it employs to identify harmful content and continued to review its policies, “we know there is much more to do”.

“New rules for the internet should protect society from harm while also supporting innovation, the digital economy and freedom of speech. These are complex issues to get right and we look forward to working with the Government and Parliament to ensure new regulations are effective,” she added.</s>Theresa May said the plans demonstrate that the age of self-regulation is over

New rules will see social media companies being legally required to protect users, with bosses potentially held personally liable if they do not comply.

The proposed measures form part of a government plan to make the UK one of the safest places in the world to be online.

Charities and campaigners have been calling for greater regulation, following concerns over the growth of violent content, encouraging suicide, disinformation and the exposure of children to cyber bullying and other inappropriate material.

Those two groups have welcomed the plans, although a trade body has warned they may be too broad in scope to be effective.

The proposals on online harms, drawn up by the Home Office and Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, say a regulator will be appointed to ensure companies meet their responsibilities.

These will be laid out in a new mandatory duty of care, which will require firms to take more responsibility for the safety of users and be more proactive in tackling the harm caused on their platforms.

The regulator - either a new body or an existing one like OFCOM - will have the ability to hit companies with "substantial" fines, block access to their sites and "potentially impose liability on individual member of senior management".

Prime Minister Theresa May said the plans, contained in a government white paper which will now go out for a 12-week consultation, demonstrate that the age of self-regulation is over.

"The internet can be brilliant at connecting people across the world - but for too long these companies have not done enough to protect users, especially children and young people, from harmful content," she said.

"That is not good enough, and it is time to do things differently.

"We have listened to campaigners and parents, and are putting a legal duty of care on internet companies to keep people safe.

"Online companies must start taking responsibility for their platforms, and help restore public trust in this technology."

Home Secretary Sajid Javid said firms had a "moral duty" to protect the young people they "profit from".

"Despite our repeated calls to action, harmful and illegal content - including child abuse and terrorism - is still too readily available online," he said.

"That is why we are forcing these firms to clean up their act once and for all."

Children's charity NSPCC, which has campaigned for tough regulations, welcomed the proposals.

Chief executive Peter Wanless said they would mean the UK is a "world pioneer" in protecting children online.

Javed Khan, chief executive at Barnardo's, said they had "long called for new laws to protect children online, just as we do offline, so they can learn, play and communicate safely".

But Daniel Dyball, UK executive director at trade body the Internet Association, sounded a warning about the "extremely wide" scope of the proposals.

"The internet industry is committed to working together with government and civil society to ensure the UK is a safe place to be online," he said.

"But to do this, we need proposals that are targeted and practical to implement for platforms both big and small."

The proposals will cover any company that allows users to share or discover user-generated content or interact with each other online.

Ministers also want the regulator to be able to force social media companies to publish annual transparency reports on harmful content and how they are addressing it.

The likes of Facebook and Twitter already do this.

Responding to the proposals, Facebook's UK head of public policy Rebecca Stimson said: "We have responsibilities to keep people safe on our services and we share the government's commitment to tackling harmful content online.

"As Mark Zuckerberg [Facebook's founder] said last month, new regulations are needed so that we have a standardised approach across platforms, and private companies aren't making so many important decisions alone."

She added that although Facebook had trebled the number of staff tasked with identifying harmful material and continued to review its policies, "we know there is much more to do".

"New rules for the internet should protect society from harm while also supporting innovation, the digital economy and freedom of speech," she continued.

"These are complex issues to get right and we look forward to working with the government and Parliament to ensure new regulations are effective."

The government's final proposals will be published after the consultation has ended.</s>The U.K. government has revealed a set of planned “extreme” measures to sanction tech companies which fail to remove “harmful content” online, including terrorist content, self-harm, bullying, and child pornography, but also “extreme pornography,” “trolling,” and “disinformation.”

The plans were published on Monday as a White Paper on the official website for the U.K government.

“The paper’s definition of harmful content is broad, ranging from terrorist content, to images of self-abuse, and child sexual exploitation,” reported Business Insider, adding that the policy paper “lays out several more extreme punitive measures which the government is considering.”

The White Paper also notes that its definition of “harmful content” includes “behaviours which are harmful but not necessarily illegal,” and specifically mentions “disinformation”, “Extreme pornography,” and “trolling” as examples of “harmful content.”

The proposed government powers reportedly include fines, the “ability to force third-party companies to shut down anything which, ‘directly or indirectly facilitates access’ to content from a website that’s in breach,” the ability to downgrade the offending company’s results on search engines, the ability to block offending company’s websites in the UK, the ability to make companies hand over any information related to their response to the “harmful content,” and the ability to hold individual company executives legally liable for content deemed harmful.

UK Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright claimed on Monday that the government fines could be “up to 4% of global turnover,” and as reported by Business Insider, “if a website flouted new rules, the regulator could make Google downgrade search its results,” and the “regulator might also be given the power to pressure firms that run app stores — namely Apple and Google — to delist or deprioritise apps that feature harmful content in some way.”

Business Insider also reported that the government paper “acknowledged that geoblocking sites would present ‘technical limitations,’ presumably because savvy users would be able to access blocked sites through a VPN (virtual private network),” however the government still notes “that the threat of ISP-blocking would still act as a ‘powerful deterrent.'”

On its ability to hold individual executives accountable, the government paper declared, “This would mean certain individuals would be held personally accountable in the event of a major breach of the statutory duty of care.”

The White Paper also discussed the “threat” of Internet anonymity, and claimed the government and law enforcement “are taking action to tackle this threat.”

“The police have a range of legal powers to identify individuals who attempt to use anonymity to escape sanctions for online abuse, where the activity is illegal,” the White Paper explained. “The government will work with law enforcement to review whether the current powers are sufficient to tackle anonymous abuse online.”

One section of the White Paper, dedicated to “disinformation,” cited the “Russian State” as a “major source of disinformation,” and declared, “Inaccurate information, regardless of intent, can be harmful – for example the spread of inaccurate anti-vaccination messaging online poses a risk to public health. The government is particularly worried about disinformation (information which is created or disseminated with the deliberate intent to mislead; this could be to cause harm, or for personal, political or financial gain).”

“The tragic recent events in New Zealand show just how quickly horrific terrorist and extremist content can spread online. We cannot allow these harmful behaviours and content to undermine the significant benefits that the digital revolution can offer,” declared Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright and Home Secretary Sajid Javid in the White Paper. “While some companies have taken steps to improve safety on their platforms, progress has been too slow and inconsistent overall. If we surrender our online spaces to those who spread hate, abuse, fear and vitriolic content, then we will all lose.”

“So our challenge as a society is to help shape an internet that is open and vibrant but also protects its users from harm. The UK is committed to a free, open and secure internet, and will continue to protect freedom of expression online. We must also take decisive action to make people safer online,” the two proclaimed. “This White Paper therefore puts forward ambitious plans for a new system of accountability and oversight for tech companies, moving far beyond self-regulation. A new regulatory framework for online safety will make clear companies’ responsibilities to keep UK users, particularly children, safer online with the most robust action to counter illegal content and activity.”</s>A proposed set of laws to be brought before the British Parliament will level criminal punishments against bosses of social media sites and tech firms responsible for spreading violent or harmful content.

The laws are proposed in the "Online Harms White Paper," a joint proposal by the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport and the Home Office was unveiled Monday. It aims to reduce the spread of harmful content on the Internet. It covers content inciting violence, disinformation, cyberbullying, children accessing inappropriate material and encouraging suicide.

Supported by Prime Minister Theresa May, the laws will allow the British government to fine or otherwise penalize these firms if they don't immediately act to remove violent content like terrorism, child pornography and graphic violence. It will also make tech firms liable for publishing fake news.

British government officials say the laws, when approved, will become "world leading laws to make the U.K. the safest place in the world to be online."

"The era of self-regulation for online companies is over," said Jeremy Wright, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

The U.K. will also establish a new regulatory office to enforce these new laws. The regulator will be empowered to impose fines on social media companies if they fail to protect people from harmful content. It can also block access to some websites and make tech company executives liable for failing to block distribution of this type of content.

Prime Minister Theresa May said that while the Internet could be brilliant at connecting people, it had not done enough to protect users, especially children and young people.

"That is not good enough, and it is time to do things differently," said May. "We have listened to campaigners and parents, and are putting a legal duty of care on internet companies to keep people safe."

This duty of care will make companies take more responsibility for the safety of users. It will also confront the harm caused by content or activity on their services. The new regulator will set clear standards for online safety.

The proposed laws, however, raise difficult and unprecedented legal questions. It will ask lawmakers to determine if tech CEOs should be held directly liable for infractions and if regulators should have the power to restrict access to egregious content.

Facebook said it was looking forward to working with the British government to ensure the new laws are effective, echoing its founder Mark Zuckerberg's statement last week that government regulations are needed to have a standard approach across platforms.

There are violations of freedom of the press and freedom of expression issues inherent in the new laws, however.

Any new rule should strike a balance between protecting society and supporting innovation and free speech, said Rebecca Stimson, Facebook's head of UK public policy.

"These are complex issues to get right and we look forward to working with the government and parliament to ensure new regulations are effective," she noted.

This article originally appeared in IBTimes US.</s>Campaigners have said plans for social media companies to be legally required to protect their users from harmful content, with senior management held personally liable for any failings, will make the internet a safer place for children.

A government White Paper on online harms published today sets out plans for a regulator to ensure internet companies including social media platforms abide by a mandatory duty of care to their users.

Charities called for the reforms to be swiftly implemented amid widespread concern about the risk of sexual grooming online and the growing toll on young people’s mental health from harmful content.

Paul Masterton, the East Renfrewshire Conservative MP who has campaigned for a duty of care for internet companies since the suicide of a teenage constituent targeted by online bullies, said the measures “have the potential to make a huge difference”.

The joint proposals from the Home Office and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) will require firms to take more responsibility for the safety of users and more actively tackle the harm caused by content or activity on their platforms.

The regulator will have the power to issue “substantial fines, block access to sites and potentially impose liability on individual members of senior management”, the proposal says.

The government is currently consulting on whether to create a new regulator or use an existing one, such as Ofcom, to enforce the new rules.

A number of charities and campaigners have called for greater regulation to be introduced, while several reports from MPs and other groups published this year have also supported the calls for a duty of care to be implemented.

Prime Minister Theresa May said the proposals were a sign that the age of self-regulation for internet companies was over.

She said: “The internet can be brilliant at connecting people across the world – but for too long these companies have not done enough to protect users, especially children and young people, from harmful content.

“That is not good enough, and it is time to do things differently.

“We have listened to campaigners and parents, and are putting a legal duty of care on internet companies to keep people safe. Online companies must start taking responsibility for their platforms, and help restore public trust in this technology.”

Mr Masterton backed calls for a statutory duty of care after the death of Ben McKenzie, an Eastwood High School pupil who took his own life in October following what Mr Masterton called “cruel online threats and bullying on social media and his mobile phone”.

Mr Masterton said yesterday: “There are lots of positive measures here which if followed through and done properly have the potential to make a huge difference in making a safer environment for our kids online.

“But the White Paper is just the first step. The government mustn’t let this vital work slip down the agenda – it’s time to prove to tech companies we are serious about making them face up to their responsibilities.”

Meanwhile, Labour’s shadow culture secretary, Tom Watson, warned that the measures “could take years to implement”, saying: “We need action immediately to protect children and others vulnerable to harm.”

He added: “These plans also seem to stop short of tackling the overriding data monopolies causing this market failure and do nothing to protect our democracy from dark digital advertising campaigners and fake news.

“This is a start but it’s a long way from truly reclaiming the web and routing out online harms.”

The proposed new laws will apply to any company that allows users to share or discover user-generated content or interact with each other online, the government said, applicable to companies of all sizes from social media platforms to file hosting sites, forum, messaging services and search engines.

It also calls for powers to be given to a regulator to force internet firms to publish annual transparency reports on the harmful content on their platforms and how they are addressing it.

Companies including Facebook and Twitter already publish reports of this nature.

Last week, Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg told politicians in the Republic of Ireland that the company would work with governments to establish new policies, in an effort to regulate social media.

The Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, said tech firms had a “moral duty” to protect the young people they “profit from”. He said: “Despite our repeated calls to action, harmful and illegal content, including child abuse and terrorism, is still too readily available online. That is why we are forcing these firms to clean up their act once and for all.

“I made it my mission to protect our young people and we are now delivering on that promise.”

A 12-week consultation about the proposals will now take place before the government will publish its final proposals for legislation.

Peter Wanless, chief executive of children’s charity the NSPCC, which has campaigned for regulation for the past two years, said the proposals would make the UK a “world pioneer” in protecting children online.

He said: “For too long social networks have failed to prioritise children’s safety and left them exposed to grooming, abuse, and harmful content.

“It’s high time they were forced to act through this legally binding duty to protect children, backed up with hefty punishments if they fail to do so.”

And Barnardo’s chief executive Javed Khan said the measures were “an important step in the right direction”.

He said: “We particularly welcome proposals for a new independent regulator, which should ensure internet bosses make the UK one of the safest places in the world for children to be online.

“It’s only right that tech companies are penalised if they fail to keep children safe and protect them from harmful and illegal content that leads to sexual abuse and child criminal exploitation.”

However, ex-culture secretary John Whittingdale said ministers risk dragging people into a “draconian censorship regime” in their attempts to regulate internet firms.

The Conservative backbencher said: “Countries such as China, Russia and North Korea, which allow no political dissent and deny their people freedom of speech, are also keen to impose censorship online, just as they already do on traditional media,” he wrote in a Sunday newspaper.

“This mooted new UK regulator must not give the despots an excuse to claim that they are simply following an example set by Britain, where civil liberties were first entrenched in Magna Carta 800 years ago,” he said.

And Daniel Dyball, UK ­executive director at trade body the Internet Association warned that the current scope of the proposals was “extremely wide”, which could hinder their implementation.

He said: “The internet industry is committed to working together with government and civil society to ensure the UK is a safe place to be online. But to do this, we need proposals that are targeted and practical to implement for platforms both big and small.”

Responding to the proposals, Facebook’s UK head of public policy Rebecca Stimson said: “We have responsibilities to keep people safe on our services and we share the government’s commitment to tackling harmful content online.”</s>The Government has set out plans for tough new online safety laws to be overseen by an independent regulator, which it claims would make the UK “the safest place in the world to go online”.

The proposed regulatory framework, published in a White Paper today, will impose a statutory “duty of care” on companies that “allows users to share or discover user-generated content or interact with each other online”.

This covers social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, but also extends to search engines, messaging services, online forums and file hosting sites.

Firms must take reasonable steps to keep their users safe online and tackle illegal and harmful activity on their platforms.

If they fail to do so they could face heavy fines, have access to their sites blocked and in some cases senior management could become liable for company failings – all powers still being consulted on.

Prime Minister Theresa May said: “The internet can be brilliant at connecting people across the world, but for too long these companies have not done enough to protect users, especially children and young people, from harmful content.

“That is not good enough, and it is time to do things differently. We have listened to campaigners and parents, and are putting a legal duty of care on internet companies to keep people safe.

“Online companies must start taking responsibility for their platforms, and help restore public trust in this technology.”

The proposed new laws aim to tackle a range of online harms, including incitement to violence and violent content, encouraging suicide, disinformation (or so-called “fake news”), cyber bullying and children viewing and reading inappropriate material online.

They will target the spread of terrorist content and child sexual abuse and exploitation content in particular.

Culture and Digital Secretary Jeremy Wright said: “The era of self-regulation for online companies is over. Voluntary actions from industry to tackle online harms have not been applied consistently or gone far enough.”

Online harms have been making headlines ahead of the white paper.

The online tabloid press faced criticism recently for sharing edited clips of the mosque massacre in New Zeland last month, which the terror attacker streamed live on Facebook. Youtube also struggled to remove uploads of the video. Fifty people were killed in the attack.

The father of 14-year-old Molly Russell, who took her own life in 2017, said in January that social media had been partly to blame for her death after finding content about depression and suicide on her Instagram account.

Today’s Online Harms White Paper is a policy document that proposes future legislation. It has been jointly written by the Home Office and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

There were reports last month that its publication had been delayed due to concerns the proposed legislation could negatively impact press freedom.

The Society of Editors said it welcomed the new measures to crack down on internet harms, but warned of the need to be vigilant over press freedom.

It warned the proposed laws set out in the White Paper could “threaten basic rights to freedom of expression if not introduced with great emphasis on avoiding too draconian regulations”.

Press freedom group Article 19 shared the society’s concerns. Its executive director, Thomas Hughes, added: “The Government must not create an environment that encourages the censorship of legitimate expression.

“Article 19 strongly opposes any ‘duty of care’ being imposed on Internet platforms. We believe a duty of care would inevitably require them to proactively monitor their networks and take a restrictive approach to content removal.

“Such actions could violate individuals’ rights to freedom of expression and privacy.” It said regulation “can be best achieved through independent self-regulation” overseen by a new independent and multi-stakeholder body.

The Government is still consulting on whether to set up a new independent regulator – some have claimed it could be called Ofweb – or if the responsibility for oversight could pass to an existing watchdog such as Ofcom, which regulates broadcast media.

It will be funded by industry in the medium term while the Government explores options, such as an industry levy, to sustain it.

The new regulator will have a “legal duty to pay due regard to innovation, and to protect users’ rights online, taking particular care not to infringe privacy or freedom of expression”, the White Paper said.

It added: “We are clear that the regulator will not be responsible for policing truth and accuracy online.”

Among the regulator’s roles would be ensuring social media publish annual “transparency reports” on the amount of harmful content on their platforms and what they’re doing to address this.

It would also make sure companies respond to users’ complaints and act quickly to address them and enforce new codes of practice, which could include action to minimise the spread of “fake news” during elections.

The regulator would take a “risk-based approach” to regulation, acting where there is the “greatest evidence or threat of harm” or where children or other vulnerable users are at risk, the paper said.

It will work to set out expectations for companies “to do what is reasonably practicable to counter harmful activity or content”.

Today’s paper also proposes creating a “safety by design” framework to help companies incorporate online safety features in new apps and platforms at the point of their creation.

A media literacy strategy to teach people to recognise deceptive and malicious behaviours online, including child grooming and extremism, is to be developed with news media organisations.

Wright MP said: “Tech can be an incredible force for good and we want the sector to be part of the solution in protecting their users, however, those that fail to do this will face tough action.

“We want the UK to be the safest place in the world to go online, and the best place to start and grow a digital business and our proposals for new laws will help make sure everyone in our country can enjoy the Internet safely.”

Home Secretary Sajid Javid added: “The tech giants and social media companies have a moral duty to protect the young people they profit from.

“Despite our repeated calls to action, harmful and illegal content – including child abuse and terrorism – is still too readily available online.

“That is why we are forcing these firms to clean up their act once and for all. I made it my mission to protect our young people – and we are now delivering on that promise.”

A 12-week consultation on the proposals launched today, after which the Government will set out what action it will take to develop its final proposals into legislation.</s>The U.K. government, without much success, tried to convince social media companies and other providers of online content to self-police so that vulnerable people and young people are not exposed to inappropriate content. Now the government is set to draw up legislation that will impose high penalties on social media companies as well as technology firms, such as those who operate Internet browsers, if they are seen to have failed to protect users from harmful content.The proposed law arises from the publicized case of 14-year-old schoolgirl Molly Russell , who committed suicide after, as her parents have stated, viewing online material on depression and suicide. Much of the material was said to have been accessed via Instagram.With the specifics of the new legalisation, the government Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will establish an an independent watchdog that will write a "code of practice" for technology and social media companies to follow. The proposal will go out for public consultation for a 12 week period Already the proposal has attracted supporters and detractors. The supporters are pleased that measures will be put in place to help to minimize the exposure that young and vulnerable people will face to material that potentially feeds anxiety or depression. The opponents fear that the proposals will, place restrictions on free speech.In terms of precedent, Germany has a law called NetzDG which came into effect at the beginning of 2018. The law places similar controls on technology firms, applying to companies with more than two million registered users in the country. The European Union is additionally considering tighter controls, specifically on prohibiting the hosting or sharing of terror videos. Speaking with the BBC and taking a break from the complexities of Brexit, government minister Jeremy Wright said: "The era of self-regulation for online companies is over. Voluntary actions from industry to tackle online harms have not been applied consistently or gone far enough."
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the United Kingdom releases a white paper proposing to set up an independent regulatory body which would require Internet companies to remove content and block websites considered harmful.