From a tech person, to people who legislate.
If you have anything to do with the online safety bill, please, PLEASE, consider these points before letting it pass.
1. Self harm.
How do you distinguish between suicidal self harm, cutting as an escape or pleasure, eating disorder related harm, alcohol imagery and advertising, piercing, tattoos, and things like binding and cosmetic mastectomies for trans and non-binary youngsters?
They could all be interpreted as self harm encouraging content by different people.
Rushing this without being mindful of all interpretations could cause it to be misused, or impractical to enforce.
2. Anonymity online.
Anonymity protects you. Yes, it protects bad actors too, but a bill concerned with online safety should be concerned with maintaining anonymity for those that need it, not taking it away.
Children in particular often benefit from it. If there's a pressing need to prevent anonymity, it should really be part of a different bill, or the existing bill should be expanded to deal with both sides of this very complex issue.
3. 'Harmful' Science.
Let's isolate harmful advice from unpopular opinions about science. There is no reason why someone who has a negative opinion of vaccines, or thinks that covid was developed in a lab, shouldn't be able to express their view.
The harm occurs when people give bad, unqualified medical advice, deal with this exclusively, as you would with anybody giving what they claim to be professional medical advice. Use the principle of what is illegal in the real world, is illegal online.
I've heard at least one peer suggest we should even include alternative opinions about climate change as harmful, when there's still a great deal of genuine debate to be had on that issue.
If we start using this bill to enforce and stagnate scientific viewpoints, that actually hinders scientific enquiry, which is always open to debate and review.
If you do want to classify opinions that offer alternatives to mainstream science as harmful, you need to consider including words from the bible, and other religions.
4. Apps.
Twitter is an app, and a website. You aren't, to the best of my knowledge, classifying apps in this bill, does that mean that twitter can ignore it for users of their app? (which I think are a majority)
Facebook, instagram, same deal.
I am fairly sure Molly Russell was using her phone, and therefore an app.
So... this bill may not even have protected her in its current form.
5. Age verification
Please make sure this is required, where, and only where, it is required, and nowhere else.
I do not think the internet will accept or even obey another fiasco like the cookie clicker legislation.
6. Adult content
There's very little problem with children seeing paid adult sites, the verification is strict and a credit card is required.
However, the free sites have a lot to answer for.
Social media shouldn't be carrying this content at all.
Being mindful of these points might help make for intelligent legislation.
7. Content Removal
You do not have to delete content to prevent it from being seen.
Far better for the creator of the offending content to see it, where they put it, and to believe they have achieved their goal.
Prevent other users from seeing it, draw the offender into a false sense of security while it is being reviewed and dealt with.
8. TikTok
Either figure out how to use this as a teaching medium and abandon educational media that requires reading and writing, kids are bored silly with words now.
Or get rid of TikTok. (Unfortunately, it's an app, and not covered by this bill - doh!)
That is all I have for now,
Thankyou for reading