Editor’s Note: Jeremy Wright is the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the UK. He was previously attorney general and elected the Conservative MP for Kenilworth and Southam in 2010. The views expressed in this commentary belong to the author. View more opinion at CNN. (CNN) — The world recently celebrated the 30th anniversary of the World Wide Web, which has changed the world for the better in many ways. It’s now easier than ever to buy things with the click of a few buttons, share information quickly and safely, and give people who previously did not have a voice platforms to express their opinions. Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament Jeremy Wright But even the web’s inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee has called for action to address a slate of problems borne out of the internet. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg also recently came out in favor of stricter regulation. These are calls that the UK government has been listening to. We’ve heard tragic stories of everything from bullying and harassment to the promotion of self harm, suicide, child sexual abuse and the glorification of terrorism and violent crime. It’s clear to us that self-regulation among tech companies has not been sufficient and action in the form of regulation is now needed. In a world first, the UK has published a blueprint for new legislation that will hold tech companies to account and protect those using their platforms. The online world is changing rapidly, and it needs an independent regulator. It will enforce a new legal obligation for online platforms to exercise a duty of care to their users. This means that companies will have a responsibility to take reasonable and proportionate steps to protect their users from harm. It is similar to the principle that when you take your child to a playground, you trust that the builder made sure the equipment was safe and that no harm will come to them. Why should it be any different online? This duty of care will be translated by the regulator into clear, concrete responsibilities for tackling harmful content and activity online. It will make tech companies more responsible for the content they host and place tougher requirements on platforms to take robust action against terrorism and child sexual exploitation and abuse. The regulator will have the powers needed to hold companies to account when they fail to keep us safe, including the power to issue substantial fines. And we are considering making senior managers liable for breaches of their company’s duty of care. This is not about curtailing freedom of expression online. The internet has given people a voice, and we want to make sure that everyone has the freedom to express themselves. Our support for the free, open, global internet is undimmed. At the same time, we must uphold our values and democracy must be protected. It is about taking a balanced approach where government intervention helps tackle online harms, with the help of the tech firms themselves. It is about not just using law, but also innovation. Technology companies need to be part of the solution and come up with innovative ways to protect their users. And we will make sure the new law minimizes the burden on start-ups, so we don’t accidentally make it harder to innovate. The UK government will open these ideas up for consultation, and I want to hear views from the United States too. I recently visited Silicon Valley, where I met with the executives of large tech companies including Facebook, Google, Twitter and Apple. Online safety is a global issue, and we need to work together on it – this can’t be done in isolation, and we want to work with you and learn from partners around the world. I believe that the plan we have set out is a major step in the right direction. The tech sector has improved our lives immeasurably. Britain has always fostered and welcomed innovation, and we will continue to embrace it. Brits invented precursors of the modern computer, along with the World Wide Web, and we want to lead the debate on how we keep our citizens safe online. Get our free weekly newsletter Sign up for CNN Opinion's new newsletter. Join us on Twitter and Facebook That is an objective on which the British Government, Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Mark Zuckerberg would all agree.<doc-sep>The UK government is taking a hard line when it comes to online safety, moving to establish what it says is the world's first independent regulator to keep social media companies in check. Companies that fail to live up to requirements will face huge fines, and senior directors who are proven to have been negligent will be held personally liable. They may also find access to their sites blocked. The new measures, designed to make the internet a safer place, were announced jointly by the Home Office and Department of Culture, Media and Sport. The introduction of the regulator is the central recommendation of a highly anticipated government white paper, titled Online Harms, published Monday in the UK. The regulator will be tasked with ensuring social media companies tackle a range of online problems, including: Incitement of violence and the spread of violent (including terrorist) content Encouragement of self-harm or suicide The spread of disinformation and fake news Cyberbullying Children's access to inappropriate material Child exploitation and abuse content As well as applying to the major social networks, such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, the requirements will also have to be met by file-hosting sites, online forums, messaging services and search engines. "For too long these companies have not done enough to protect users, especially children and young people, from harmful content," UK Prime Minister Theresa 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." Google and Facebook didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Now playing: Watch this: The UK may make tech companies clean up social media's... The UK government is trying to decide whether to appoint an existing regulator to the job or to create a brand-new regulator position purely for this purpose. Initially the position will be funded by the tech industry, and the government is debating a levy for social media companies. "The era of self-regulation for online companies is over," Digital Secretary Jeremy Wright said in a statement. "Voluntary actions from industry to tackle online harms have not been applied consistently or gone far enough." The global move toward regulation The measures announced by the UK on Monday are part of a larger global move toward greater regulation for big tech. The efforts originated in Europe, but have been gaining traction in the US, as well as with the leaders of tech companies, including Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook. At a time of great political upheaval in the UK, the government is deciding to stand up to Silicon Valley tech companies, while hoping they'll continue to create local jobs once the country has departed the EU. There are still some elements of the new regulatory process that are up for debate. For too long these companies have not done enough to protect users, especially children and young people. Prime Minister Theresa May Damian Collins, chair of Parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which recently published a report on fake news that branded social media companies as "digital gangsters," said it's important that the regulator has the power to launch investigations when necessary. "The regulator cannot rely on self-reporting by the companies," he said. "In a case like that of the Christchurch terrorist attack for example, a regulator should have the power to investigate how content of that atrocity was shared and why more was not done to stop it sooner." Vinous Ali, head of policy for industry body TechUK, welcomed the publication of the white paper, but said in a statement that some elements of the government's approach remained "too vague" and that the government will need to be clear about exactly what it wants the regulator to achieve. The "duty of care" that the government believes social media companies have toward users is not clearly defined and open to broad interpretation, she added. The Internet Association, which represents a long list of the world's biggest tech companies, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, said it's important that any proposals are practical for platforms to implement regardless of their size. A spokeswoman for Twitter said in a statement that the company is committed to prioritizing the safety of users, pointing to more than 70 changes the platform made last year. "We will continue to engage in the discussion between industry and the UK Government," she said, "as well as work to strike an appropriate balance between keeping users safe and preserving the internet's open, free nature." What about free speech? Twitter is not the only entity that raised the issue of the internet's openness in relation to the UK government's plan. Paul Barrett, deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, found two potential problems with the proposals. "First, it raises the specter of government censorship," he said in a statement. "Second, it shows how the failure of the social media companies to exercise more vigorous self-governance, especially when it comes to disinformation, has created the risk of government overreach." Digital rights groups reiterated the concern that overly harsh regulation of social media could lead to free speech and privacy violations. "This is an unprecedented attack on freedom of speech that will see internet giants monitoring the communications of billions and censoring lawful speech," Big Brother Watch said in a tweet. Joy Hyvarinen, head of advocacy for Index on Censorship, said in a statement she's concerned that "protecting freedom of expression is less important than the government wanting to be seen as 'doing something' in response to public pressure." "Internet regulation needs a calm, evidence-based approach that safeguards freedom of expression rather than undermining it," she added. Before the proposals for greater regulation go any further, they face a vote in Parliament. During that time, it's possible that elements of the plan released Monday could change. Originally published April 7 at 4:00 p.m. PT. Update, April 8 at 8:20 a.m. PT: Added comments about censorship concerns.<doc-sep>NEW A vastly improved search engine helps you find the latest on companies, business leaders, and news more easily.<doc-sep>Critics of the government’s flagship internet regulation policy are warning it could lead to a North Korean-style censorship regime, where regulators decide which websites Britons are allowed to visit, because of how broad the proposals are. The mooted legislation, launched on Monday in the online harms white paper, covers any website that “allows users to share or discover user-generated content, or interact with each other online”, a definition which potentially covers vast areas of the internet. As well as social media companies and discussion forums, any site with comment sections, crowdsourced reviews or individual user profile pages falls under that definition, encompassing everything from online news sites to video game stores. The regulation imposes a duty of care on affected sites, holding them liable for restricting “behaviours which are harmful but not necessarily illegal”. A site that does not fulfil its duty of care could be fined, its senior managers held criminally liable or the regulator could demand the site be blocked entirely. The proposed rules, and the creation of a regulator to enforce them, are part of a wide-ranging series of recommendations that attempt to tackle the spread of material related to terrorism, child abuse, self-harm and suicide on the internet. The white paper, unveiled on Monday, comes following growing pressure on the government to act in the wake of the death of teenager Molly Russell, whose father believed that exposure to images of self-harm on social media was a factor in her taking her own life. But critics from across the political spectrum have warned the legislation could also threaten freedom of speech. Jim Killock, the executive director of the Open Rights Group, said: “The government’s proposals would create state regulation of the speech of millions of British citizens. We have to expect that the duty of care will end up widely drawn, with serious implications for legal content that is deemed potentially risky, whether it really is nor not.” On Monday, government ministers sought to reassure critics. Sajid Javid, the home secretary, said: “Press freedom is absolutely sacrosanct in this country” and that “there is nothing in this white paper that challenges that in any way whatsoever”. Quick Guide Online harms white paper Show What is being proposed? A regulator will be tasked with ensuring online companies meet a new "duty of care" to their users. That regulator, which may be a new body, or a pre-existing organisation such as Ofcom given new powers, would have the power to issue significant fines against technology companies it finds in breach. For serious harms, or for repeat offenders, it can go further still, and hold individual managers criminally liable, or even demand the site be blocked in the UK. Who welcomes it? Damian Collins, the chair of the Commons DCMS committee, said he was pleased to see "that the social media companies should have a legal liability to take down harmful content hosted on their platforms". The NSPCC, which was consulted on the white paper, called it "a hugely significant commitment by the government". The charity's CEO, Peter Wanless, said: "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." Why is it controversial? Internet blocking is always a hot button issue, even when it's for harms as serious as online terror or child abuse. But the white paper contains several specific proposals that have left free speech campaigners deeply concerned. One is the fact that the white paper explicitly addresses not only illegal content, but also content which is "legal but harmful". By requiring online companies to block that content anyway, campaigners argue, the government is outsourcing decisions that should be made by parliament to, at best, an unaccountable regulator, and at worst, the very internet companies that are supposed to be controlled by the legislation. What's been left out? There are plenty of online harms that haven't been addressed by the white paper. Little was said about electoral malpractice, for instance: there was no mention of overhauling electoral regulations, something the Electoral Commission first said should be done 15 years ago. Sajid Javid, the home secretary, promised that the Cabinet Office was doing work on that area, and that "not too long from now you'll be hearing about it." Others noted how limited the legislation was in addressing a multitude of misogynist harm online: "cyber flashing", "revenge porn", and online stalking were all notable by their absence. Was this helpful? Thank you for your feedback. Earlier, Jeremy Wright, the culture secretary, promised the government’s plans to regulate online harms would not descend into “North Korean-style censorship”, even though the government was planning to introduce new powers to allow regulators to block companies from operating in the UK. The culture secretary, Jeremy Wright, said powers to block websites operating in the UK were an important last resort. Photograph: Will Oliver/EPA Wright said powers to block websites were an important part of the legislation. “If everything else fails,” Wright said, “we will look at simply denying the opportunity for some of these websites to operate in the UK. “That is a power that is available elsewhere. It is technically feasible to do it. It is not without problems, I should make that clear. But I think it is right at this stage for the government to set out a full range of penalties, up to and including that one, because we need those companies, which are large, global companies … to take this regulator seriously.” Others said the legislation might not even have its desired effect of reining in the large tech companies. Dom Hallas, the executive director of the Coalition for a Digital Economy, which represents the UK’s startup industry, said: “These plans will entrench the tech giants, not punish them. “The vast scope of the proposals means they cover not just social media but virtually the entire internet – from file sharing to newspaper comment sections.<doc-sep>
Britain wants to take a world-leading role in regulating the biggest tech companies. The UK government says it wants to legislate for a new independent regulator that would oversee "harmful content" on social media, search engines, messaging, and file-sharing platforms. It would be the UK's first time regulating online safety, with the internet conventionally seen as ungovernable. Platforms that fail to keep hate speech and content relating to sexual abuse, violence, terrorism, or self-abuse off their services would face huge fines under the proposed rules. Industry lobbying bodies representing Facebook, Google, and other big tech firms say the proposed laws are too vague and may harm competition. The internet's days as the Wild West may be numbered. The British government has laid out a blueprint for groundbreaking new laws that would regulate social media, search, messaging, and even file-sharing platforms for content found to cause "online harm." That umbrella term includes content relating to sexual abuse, violence, hate speech and terrorism, self-harm, and underage sexting. The proposals, dubbed the world's "first online safety laws" in an emailed statement, coincide with global pressure on US tech firms to prevent terrorist propaganda, hate speech, and depictions of self-harm from appearing on their sites. It also comes at a time when Silicon Valley leaders like Mark Zuckerberg are calling for regulation. Facebook, YouTube, and the more niche 8chan came in for severe criticism just last month when the Christchurch, New Zealand, attacker livestreamed the shootings at two mosques. In February, Instagram banned "extreme" images of self-harm after the suicide of the British teenager Molly Russell. The proposals, put forward in a white paper by the UK's Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, call for a new independent regulator that would police these platforms for harmful content. It will have the power to issue major fines and even hold individual executives responsible for failing to comply with any new laws. Fines could reach billions of dollars for the biggest companies, Culture Minister Margot James told Business Insider in February. Tech firms would also need to obey a "duty of care," which would require them to take steps meant to keep users safe and to deal with illegal or harmful content. Other proposals include: Forcing social-media firms to publish transparency reports about content considered harmful on their services and the measures they take to combat it. Compelling companies to respond quickly to user complaints, possibly akin to Germany's controversial "NetzDG" law. Codes of practice that might require tech firms to minimize the spread of misinformation during elections. A framework to help tech firms build safety features into their apps from the start. A media-literacy strategy to help people recognize misinformation and malicious behaviors. "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," British Prime Minister Theresa May said in a statement. "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." Big tech wants more detail about how the new laws will actually work The proposals are still some way off becoming legislation, and what actually ends up becoming law may look quite different from Monday's policy paper after further industry and public consultation. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Getty The Internet Association, a lobby group that counts Facebook, Google, Snap, Reddit, and Twitter among its members, said the proposals needed tightening up. "The internet industry is committed to working together with government and civil society to ensure the UK is a safe place to be online," the Internet Association's UK executive director, Daniel Dyball, said in a statement. "But to do this, we need proposals that are targeted and practical to implement for platforms both big and small. "We also need to protect freedom of speech and the services consumers love. The scope of the recommendations is extremely wide, and decisions about how we regulate what is and is not allowed online should be made by Parliament." Coadec, a group that lobbies on behalf of startups, said overly strict regulation could punish smaller firms that don't have the money and clout of Facebook and Google.