Safety measures to protect children from 'toxic algorithms'
The Independent
A generation of children will no longer be "at the mercy of toxic algorithms", the Technology Secretary has declared, as new online safety protections officially came into force. Peter Kyle stated that the government was laying the foundations for a "safer, healthier, more humane online world", issuing a stern warning to tech firms that they "will be held to account" if they fail to adhere to the new measures. The changes, enacted as part of the Online Safety Act and set to be enforced by regulator Ofcom, mandate that online platforms hosting pornography or other harmful content — such as material related to self-harm, suicide, or eating disorders — must implement robust age checks.
These can include facial age estimation or credit card verification. Furthermore, platforms are now required to ensure their algorithms do not actively harm children by, for example, pushing such content towards them. Companies found to be non-compliant face severe penalties, including fines of up to £18 million or 10 per cent of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever sum is greater. Court orders that could block access to these platforms in the UK are also a potential consequence.
Campaigners have underscored the critical need for strict enforcement, with the NSPCC urging Ofcom to "show its teeth" if companies fail to make the necessary changes in line with the regulator's child protection codes. But the Molly Rose Foundation — set up by bereaved father Ian Russell after his 14-year-old daughter Molly took her own life having viewed harmful content on social media — said there is a "lack of ambition and accountability" in the measures, and accused the regulator of choosing to "prioritise the business needs of big tech over children's safety". Mr Kyle insisted the Government has "drawn a line in the sand" and that the codes will bring real change.
He said: "This Government has taken one of the boldest steps anywhere in the world to reclaim the digital space for young people — to lay the foundations for a safer, healthier, more humane place online. "We cannot — and will not — allow a generation of children to grow up at the mercy of toxic algorithms, pushed to see harmful content they would never be exposed to offline. This is not the internet we want for our children, nor the future we are willing to accept." He said the time for tech platforms "to look the other way is over", calling on them to "act now to protect our children, follow the law, and play their part in creating a better digital world". He warned: "And let me be clear: if they fail to do so, they will be held to account. I will not hesitate to go further and legislate to ensure that no child is left unprotected."
Ofcom chief executive Dame Melanie Dawes has previously defended criticism of the reforms, insisting that tech firms are not being given much power over the new measures, which will apply across the UK. Dame Melanie said: "Prioritising clicks and engagement over children's online safety will no longer be tolerated in the UK. "Our message to tech firms is clear — comply with age checks and other protection measures set out in our codes, or face the consequences of enforcement action from Ofcom." The regulator said X, formerly Twitter, and others including Bluesky, Reddit and dating app Grindr are among those to have committed to age assurances, and described its safety codes as demanding that algorithms "must be tamed and configured for children so that the most harmful material is blocked".
It said it has launched a monitoring and impact programme focused on some of the platforms where children spend most time including social media sites Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, gaming site Roblox and video clip website YouTube. The sites are among those which have been asked to submit, by August 7, a review of their efforts to assess risks to children and, by September 30, scrutiny of the practical actions they are taking to keep children safe. Chris Sherwood, chief executive at the NSPCC, said: "Children, and their parents, must not solely bear the responsibility of keeping themselves safe online. It's high time for tech companies to step up." He said if enforcement is "strong", the codes should offer a "vital layer of protection" for children and young people when they go online, adding: "If tech companies fail to comply, Ofcom must show its teeth and fully enforce the new codes".
Echoing this, Barnardo's children's charity said the changes are "an important stepping stone" but "must be robustly enforced". England's Children's Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, said Friday "marks a new era of change in how children can be protected online, with tech companies now needing to identify and tackle the risks to children on their platforms or face consequences", and said the measures must keep pace with emerging technology to make them effective in the future. But Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, said: "This should be a watershed moment for young people but instead we've been let down by a regulator that has chosen to prioritise the business needs of big tech over children's safety."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
3 days ago
- Gulf Today
Tulsi Gabbard became a ‘weapon of mass distraction'
Josh Marcus, The Independent Critics have accused Tulsi Gabbard of trying to shield Donald Trump's administration from scrutiny through her recent claims that top Obama administration officials should be prosecuted for leading a "coup" against the president in 2016 by investigating Russian efforts to help his campaign. The allegations and conspiracy theories "would be sad if they weren't so dangerous," Democratic Rep. Jason Crow told Fox News on Sunday. "She has turned herself into a weapon of mass distraction, is what I've been calling it." Crow accused Trump's national intelligence director of "trying to curry and get back into favor with Donald Trump and has concocted these theories to do so," an apparent reference to Gabbard and Trump's public disagreement over the state of Iran's nuclear programme. This month, Gabbard spearheaded the release of materials regarding the then-outgoing Obama administration's attempts to probe Russian influence operations during the 2016 election. Critics saw the release as an attempt to distract from continued criticism of the Trump administration for its handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files and the president's ties to the late financier, who died in prison while awaiting a federal sex trafficking trial. "Nothing in this partisan, previously scuttled document changes that," Senator Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told The Hill after the disclosures. "Releasing this so-called report is just another reckless act by a Director of National Intelligence so desperate to please Donald Trump that she is willing to risk classified sources, betray our allies, and politicise the very intelligence she has been entrusted to protect," he said. Gabbard claims the Obama materials, including a declassified 2020 Republican report from the House intelligence committee, reveal his "years long coup" against Trump. She claims that top Obama officials pushed to override past intelligence findings to allege that Russians specifically wanted to boost the Trump campaign, rather than undermine faith in the US election system more generally, and has called for Obama and others to face criminal charges. Trump has echoed such claims, sharing a fake, AI- generated video of Obama being arrested and thrown in jail on his Truth Social account. As evidence of the alleged coup, Gabbard honed in on past conclusions that Russian actors did not successfully hack digital voting infrastructure or change vote counts, suggesting these findings clashed with intelligence officials' later assessments that Russia sought to help Trump. Susan Miller, a former CIA officer who helped oversee the 2017 intelligence assessment, said Gabbard was "lying." "We definitely had the intel to show with high probability that the specific goal of the Russians was to get Trump elected," Miller told NBC News, adding that intelligence officials had briefed Trump on their findings and he had thanked them. "At the same time, we found no two-way collusion between Trump or his team with the Russians at that time," she said. Obama's office issued a rare public statement denouncing Gabbard's allegations. "These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes," a spokesperson said. The White House has pushed back against the argument that Gabbard's investigation is a partisan play. "The only people who are suggesting that the director of national intelligence would release evidence to try to boost her standing with the president are the people in this room who constantly try to sow distrust and chaos among the president's Cabinet," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a Wednesday briefing. "And it's not working," she said. Multiple assessments have backed up the intelligence community's original findings of a general, one-way Russian influence operation that sought to boost Trump through tactics like hacking Democratic party materials and spreading disinformation online, even though the Trump campaign itself wasn't shown to have collaborated on the effort. Special counsels have investigated both the underlying "Russiagate" claims and the origins of the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign without uncovering any intentional "coup" by the Obama administration.
Gulf Today
3 days ago
- Gulf Today
Oasis, Adolescence: How the UK finally got cool again
Helen Coffey, The Independent If you're Gen Z or younger, you probably can't remember the last time the UK was cool. It was before your time, I'm afraid – a Nineties heyday embodied by Britpop bands such as Oasis and Blur, Richard Curtis romcoms, YBAs (Young British Artists) headed up by Damien Hirst and his provocative animals in formaldehyde, and Tony Blair's Labour Party finally booting the Tories out of power in 1997 after an 18-year stronghold. It marked a period of genuine optimism — a feeling epitomised by sexy smackhead Mark Renton (Ewan McGregor) 'choosing life' at the end of Danny Boyle's Nineties masterpiece, Trainspotting – when British fashion, music and culture were the envy of all. A time when the country felt progressive, thriving and relevant. A time when, in fact, one might feel the tiniest bit justified in being 'proud to be British'. Ginger Spice was even able to wear a union jack mini-dress to the 1997 Brit Awards without the merest hint that she was making some kind of anti-immigration political statement. That same year, Katrina and the Waves won the Eurovision Song Contest on behalf of the United Kingdom with their uplifting ballad 'Love Shine a Light'. Since that golden era of Cool Britannia petered out, we've been sorely lacking in the trendy department. The Tories wrested power back from Labour again in 2010, introduced the chokehold of austerity, and clung on for the next 14 years. The flame of excitement prompted by the success of the 2012 London Olympics was comprehensively doused by the damp squib that was the Brexit referendum — and ensuing economic downturn — in 2016. Our street cred was further dented by dodgy Covid contracts and a succession of cringe-making leaders who ran the gamut from robotic to corrupt. Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak: it's practically a four-way tie in the 'which of our prime ministers was the most embarrassing' race to the bottom. No, for a nigh-on a quarter of a century, 'cool' was not a word one could feasibly use to describe the British Isles – not without a knowing flicker of irony, at any rate. But now, all of a sudden, we might just be on the cusp of Cool Britannia Mark II. Now, for the first time in decades, might it be — whisper it — cool to be British again? Of course, the country has long continued to hold a certain charm for anglophiles the world over, but it was previously always our past, rather than our present, that captivated foreigners. Jane Austen adaptations of varying quality may have flown off the shelves; Downton Abbey may have garnered such global popularity that endless series continued to be made, regardless of the increasing 'jump the shark' implausibility that the Crawley family were barely ageing through the decades. But modern Britain, with its deflated economy and mortifying politicians, its littering and its rioting and its binge drinking, was an understandably unappealing prospect for all but the country's staunchest defenders. People wanted the Britain of bonnets and smouldering heroes in the mould of Pride and Prejudice's Mr Darcy or a topless Aidan Turner as Poldark. They did not want the Britain of The Only Way Is Essex. Yet it seems the tide might finally have turned. The signs that the UK's cultural cachet was about to experience an unexpected surge were already there, of course. No, Keir Starmer's thrashing of the Tories last year was far from the jubilant landslide of Labour in the late Nineties, but it at least represented some kind of hope after years in exile for those on the Left. The official trend and soundtrack for that summer – Brat summer – was orchestrated by unabashedly hip British musician Charli XCX, whose album emboldened a generation of young people to sack off curating a perfect Insta grid and stay out raving all night in yesterday's makeup. Even Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris got in on the action after Charli declared 'kamala IS brat' on social media. Now, 2025 seems to be the year when everything has coalesced – and people are once again loving the UK for her grittiness, rather than her prettiness. The Gallagher brothers, pivotal in Cool Britannia's previous iteration, have kick-started a frenzy of Britpop nostalgia single-handed with their reunion tour. Guy Ritchie's latest gangster series, MobLand, with its hard-as-nails London crime scene juxtaposed by picturesque Cotswolds manor houses, was an instant success for Paramount. Adolescence, a dark mini-series set in Yorkshire about a 13-year-old boy who murders a classmate after becoming radicalised online, is Netflix's most-watched show of the year and its second most-watched English-language series of all time. The show's standout performances earned Emmy nominations for Stephen Graham, Erin Doherty and Ashley Walters, as well as 15-year-old Owen Cooper, who made history by becoming the youngest ever nominee in the limited series supporting actor category. And then there are the celebrity endorsements that keep rolling in. 'Everything here is just better,' comedian and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres recently said of the UK after moving here with wife Portia de Rossi following Donald Trump's re-election. 'The way animals are treated, people are polite. I just love it here.'
Gulf Today
5 days ago
- Gulf Today
Safety measures to protect children from 'toxic algorithms'
Aine Fox, The Independent A generation of children will no longer be "at the mercy of toxic algorithms", the Technology Secretary has declared, as new online safety protections officially came into force. Peter Kyle stated that the government was laying the foundations for a "safer, healthier, more humane online world", issuing a stern warning to tech firms that they "will be held to account" if they fail to adhere to the new measures. The changes, enacted as part of the Online Safety Act and set to be enforced by regulator Ofcom, mandate that online platforms hosting pornography or other harmful content — such as material related to self-harm, suicide, or eating disorders — must implement robust age checks. These can include facial age estimation or credit card verification. Furthermore, platforms are now required to ensure their algorithms do not actively harm children by, for example, pushing such content towards them. Companies found to be non-compliant face severe penalties, including fines of up to £18 million or 10 per cent of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever sum is greater. Court orders that could block access to these platforms in the UK are also a potential consequence. Campaigners have underscored the critical need for strict enforcement, with the NSPCC urging Ofcom to "show its teeth" if companies fail to make the necessary changes in line with the regulator's child protection codes. But the Molly Rose Foundation — set up by bereaved father Ian Russell after his 14-year-old daughter Molly took her own life having viewed harmful content on social media — said there is a "lack of ambition and accountability" in the measures, and accused the regulator of choosing to "prioritise the business needs of big tech over children's safety". Mr Kyle insisted the Government has "drawn a line in the sand" and that the codes will bring real change. He said: "This Government has taken one of the boldest steps anywhere in the world to reclaim the digital space for young people — to lay the foundations for a safer, healthier, more humane place online. "We cannot — and will not — allow a generation of children to grow up at the mercy of toxic algorithms, pushed to see harmful content they would never be exposed to offline. This is not the internet we want for our children, nor the future we are willing to accept." He said the time for tech platforms "to look the other way is over", calling on them to "act now to protect our children, follow the law, and play their part in creating a better digital world". He warned: "And let me be clear: if they fail to do so, they will be held to account. I will not hesitate to go further and legislate to ensure that no child is left unprotected." Ofcom chief executive Dame Melanie Dawes has previously defended criticism of the reforms, insisting that tech firms are not being given much power over the new measures, which will apply across the UK. Dame Melanie said: "Prioritising clicks and engagement over children's online safety will no longer be tolerated in the UK. "Our message to tech firms is clear — comply with age checks and other protection measures set out in our codes, or face the consequences of enforcement action from Ofcom." The regulator said X, formerly Twitter, and others including Bluesky, Reddit and dating app Grindr are among those to have committed to age assurances, and described its safety codes as demanding that algorithms "must be tamed and configured for children so that the most harmful material is blocked". It said it has launched a monitoring and impact programme focused on some of the platforms where children spend most time including social media sites Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, gaming site Roblox and video clip website YouTube. The sites are among those which have been asked to submit, by August 7, a review of their efforts to assess risks to children and, by September 30, scrutiny of the practical actions they are taking to keep children safe. Chris Sherwood, chief executive at the NSPCC, said: "Children, and their parents, must not solely bear the responsibility of keeping themselves safe online. It's high time for tech companies to step up." He said if enforcement is "strong", the codes should offer a "vital layer of protection" for children and young people when they go online, adding: "If tech companies fail to comply, Ofcom must show its teeth and fully enforce the new codes". Echoing this, Barnardo's children's charity said the changes are "an important stepping stone" but "must be robustly enforced". England's Children's Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, said Friday "marks a new era of change in how children can be protected online, with tech companies now needing to identify and tackle the risks to children on their platforms or face consequences", and said the measures must keep pace with emerging technology to make them effective in the future. But Andy Burrows, chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation, said: "This should be a watershed moment for young people but instead we've been let down by a regulator that has chosen to prioritise the business needs of big tech over children's safety."
