Ofcom boss: Tech firms not given much power over how to protect children online
Ian Russell, who has been campaigning for improved online safety since his 14-year-old daughter Molly took her own life after viewing harmful content on social media, said Ofcom needs to 'act within the bounds of the Act in the strongest possible way' and communicate weaknesses in the legislation to the Government.
Ofcom's chief executive Dame Melanie Dawes told BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg: 'We've set out about five or six things that we think can work, like facial checks and using things where you've already been checked for your age, like credit cards or open banking.
Dame Melanie Dawes defended upcoming online safety measures (Jeff Overs/BBC)
'We said (to tech companies) you decide what works for your platform but we will be checking whether it's effective and those that don't put in those checks will hear from us with enforcement action.'
Responding to the suggestion that Ofcom is giving companies a lot of power over how they implement measures, Dame Melanie said: 'No, we're not giving them that much power actually. What I'm saying is that when they're putting in age checks they need to work out what's going to work on their service.
'But, let me be really clear, what we are demanding to protect children and what does come in force at the end of this month they're going to need to tame those algorithms so that not just porn and suicide and self-harm material must not be shown but also violent content, dangerous challenges, misogyny, all of that must not be fed actively to kids on their feeds.'
Pressed on why those types of content are not being blocked altogether, the chief executive said: 'What Parliament decided was that there should be an absolute block on suicide and self-harm material and pornography for under-18s and, then, what we've done is also add to that other types of content that we think is really harmful for children.'
Ian Russell said Ofcom needs to communicate weaknesses in the legislation to the Government (Yui Mok/PA)
She added: 'I'm not a politician and I think it's incredibly important that Ofcom respects the role that we have which is to implement the laws that we've been given.
'If Parliament decides to widen those towards mis- and disinformation, or wider issues around addiction for the kids, for example, then of course, Ofcom stands ready to implement that.'
Mr Russell said on the programme that it 'sounds promising' but the proof will be in what happens in practice.
He said: '(Ofcom) need to act within the bounds of the Act in the strongest possible way.
'They're sitting in the middle pushed on one side by families who've lost people like me and pushed on the other side by the power of the big tech platforms.
'I also think it's really important that Melanie starts to talk back to Government because Ofcom is clear about where the act is weak and she needs to push back and communicate those weaknesses to the Government so that we can make change where necessary.'
He said the charity he set up in his daughter's name, the Molly Rose Foundation, will be monitoring how harmful content online is reduced.
Any company that fails to comply with the checks by July 25 could be fined or could be made unavailable in the UK through a court order.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said those changes in the law are 'really important', adding it was now up to technology companies to put in 'robust safeguards' for children using their platforms.
But she suggested it was not the end of ministers' plans, telling the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg: 'We are very clear as a Government that this is the foundation for a safer online experience for children, but it is not the end of the conversation.
'Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary, has been clear that he wants to look at things such as addictive habits and how we create healthier habits for children online in the same way as we talk about healthier physical habits for children.'
Ministers 'will keep under review what is required', Ms Alexander added.
Ofcom research found that 8% of eight to 14-year-olds in the UK had visited an online porn site or app on smartphones, tablets or computers in a month.
Last month, the regulator said it had launched a string of investigations into 4chan, a porn site operator and several file-sharing platforms over suspected failures to protect children, after it received complaints about illegal activity and potential sharing of child abuse images.
A report looking into the use and effectiveness of age assurance methods will be published by Ofcom next year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
22 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
MP Diane Abbott suspended from Labour Party over comments about racism
She has been 'administratively suspended' while the party investigates. The move means the whip is automatically suspended in the House of Commons for the Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP, it is understood. 'Diane Abbott has been administratively suspended from the Labour Party, pending an investigation. We cannot comment further while this investigation is ongoing,' a Labour Party spokesperson said. Ms Abbott was suspended by the Labour Party in 2023 after writing a letter to the Observer comparing racism experienced by people of colour with that seen by other groups. She apologised for any anguish caused by the remarks, which drew criticism from Jewish and Traveller groups, and was readmitted to the party before the 2024 general election. But in a new interview with BBC Radio 4's Reflections programme, she said she did not look back on the incident with regret. 'No, not at all,' she told the BBC. 'Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism, because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street, you don't know. 'You don't know unless you stop to speak to them or you're in a meeting with them. 'But if you see a black person walking down the street, you see straight away that they're black. They are different types of racism.' She added: 'I just think that it's silly to try and claim that racism which is about skin colour is the same as other types of racism.' Ms Abbott posted a clip of her BBC interview after news of her suspension emerged. She did not respond to a request for comment. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner was asked if she was disappointed by the comments. 'I was. There's no place for antisemitism in the Labour Party, and obviously the Labour Party has processes for that,' she told The Guardian. 'Diane had reflected on how she'd put that article together, and said that 'was not supposed to be the version', and now to double down and say 'Well, actually I didn't mean that. I actually meant what I originally said', I think is a real challenge.'Ms Abbott is the longest-serving female MP in the Commons, having entered Parliament in 1987, and holds the honorary title of Mother of the House. She lost the whip in April 2023 after her letter to the Observer, sparking a long-running process during which she sat as an Independent MP for about a year while an internal investigation took place. She was readmitted as a Labour MP shortly before the 2024 election. Ms Abbott suggested in the letter that Jewish, Irish and Traveller people experience prejudice, but not racism. She withdrew the remarks the same day and apologised 'for any anguish caused'. In the newly released BBC interview, she said she was 'grateful' to be a Labour MP, but that she was sure the party leadership had been 'trying to get me out'.
The Sun
23 minutes ago
- The Sun
Labour giving under-18s right to vote is profoundly wrong and the reason is really simple
WHEN polling day dawns at the next general election, some 1.6million new voters will have been added to the electoral rolls. Hundreds of thousands of bright-eyed 16 and 17-year-olds will be entitled to cast a vote for their local MP for the very first time, thanks to Labour plans announced yesterday. 3 3 Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner says it will finally 'give the young a stake in our country's future'. While she's right to say those teenagers will have a say in our democracy, she is absolutely, profoundly and maddeningly wrong to think that they should. Why? Because voting is something that adults get to do, and 16 and 17-year-olds are not adults, they're children. It's really that simple. The Deputy PM claimed in a newspaper article that 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote because they can serve in the Armed Forces. This is not actually true. Under-18s may join the military, but they can't actually serve while under-age. Indeed, we don't trust 16 and 17-year-olds to do very much at all. They can't legally buy alcohol, or a packet of cigarettes or even a vape. If we can't trust them with a pint of lager, why on Earth would we trust them with a pencil in a polling booth? We don't trust under-18s to be able to watch violent movies at the cinema or pornography on their laptops. The Online Safety Act bans under-18s from being able to look at explicit material on porn sites, while 16 and 17-year-olds can't even be held fully accountable for any criminal offences they commit, no matter how serious. Reform would sweep through Labour's Red Wall at election, shock poll reveals as 68% think Britain is broken Yes, a 17-year-old can legally drive a car but, judging by the accident statistics, they're far more likely to kill themselves and others than any other drivers on the road. And allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote would be an even bigger car crash. Angela Rayner claims that many 16-year-olds are responsible beyond their years, working hard and paying tax, just as she was as a young mum at that age. Apart from the 16 and 17-year-olds, of course, who are allowed to leave school at 16 but are still required by law to be in education or training until the age of 18. Ruthless and cynical Ah, but what about all the young people who work and pay tax before the age of 18? Shouldn't they be allowed to vote? Well, that's pretty much every child who has ever saved up their pocket money to buy a new toy, because they pay 20 per cent VAT just like their parents. Are we seriously saying seven-year-olds buying Barbie dolls or Lego should also get the vote? Of course not! Let's be honest, Labour's bid to lower the voting age has nothing to do with a starry-eyed faith in the wisdom of youth or an ardent desire to broaden our democratic processes. It's all about a ruthless and cynical bid to stay in power. After winning his loveless landslide last year, with less than 34 per cent of the vote, and his government plummeting in the polls, Sir Keir Starmer has given up all hope of winning the support of British adults. Now he's having to resort to winning over their kids with some blatant election gerrymandering. When cynical politicians say they want 16 and 17-year-olds to vote, what they really mean is that they want 16 and 17-year-olds to vote for them. The PM knows that younger voters are more likely to support left-wing parties, so why not lower the voting age to benefit the Labour party? After all, why wouldn't children want to vote Labour after years of being indoctrinated by their teachers into green propaganda, trans ideology, welfare dependency and victimhood, pro-immigration and anti-Trump views, and a hard-left take on Britain's history as a white supremacist colonial power responsible for every wrong in the world? But Sir Keir Starmer may find that extending votes to young teens could come back to bite him in the backside, as many younger voters choose instead to turn to the more radical Greens or even Jeremy Corbyn's new hard-left party instead of backing the Labour government. They are just as likely to prefer Reform UK as the anti-Establishment party, following many young voters who are flocking to right-wing parties across Europe. Labour may end up ruing the day they lowered the voting age to 16, but we will all have to live with the consequences of this cynical political tactic. Giving children the vote proves beyond all doubt that, when it comes to British politics, the grown-ups are no longer in charge. ED MILIBAND, Secretary of State for Climate Hysteria, took a break from proclaiming 'The End Of The World is Nigh' to make the case for Net Zero this week. After delivering an address to the Commons on climate change, he said 'our British way of life is under threat' from it – and told Tory and Reform MPs they were 'unpatriotic' for wanting to abandon Net Zero targets. That's quite a claim. But maybe not as extreme as that of Dale Vince, Labour donor and green energy millionaire, who wants 'climate denial' to be a crime. I'd have thought the REAL threat to the 'British way of life' would be jailing those who wisely object to spending £1trillion of taxpayers' money on targets that will make our country poorer and energy more expensive, while importing Chinese-made solar panels and turbines. I guess the climate zealots prefer heatwave hysteria to cold hard facts. WE'LL PAY FOR DATA SCANDAL THE Afghan data leak and the Tory Government's cover-up using a court super-injunction is a scandal from start to finish. It could cost us dearly, paying for the fallout from the accidental email leaking a database of almost 19,000 Afghans and their families claiming to be at risk from the Taliban after British forces left. An accidental email which we were not told about for two years. Yet it seems that everyone else – including the Taliban – DID know! Meanwhile, ambulance-chasing lawyers have already lined up a thousand Afghans to sue the Government for putting their lives at risk. You'd think that those Afghans might be a tad grateful to have been brought to safety in the UK in clandestine flights rather than left to rot under the Taliban, but apparently not. Instead, they will be bringing a class action suit that could cost up to £1billion in compensation. MPs are launching their own investigations, while newspapers are now finally free to hold ministers to account. But whenever the Government makes a mistake, it is always the long-suffering taxpayer who has to pick up the bill.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Starmer's chief of staff is top paid special adviser
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff is the highest paid special adviser, government figures McSweeney is paid between £155,000 and £159,999, the Cabinet Office said in a senior government staffers, known as spads, are in the next highest band and are paid between £145,000 and £149, Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, No 10's director of strategic communications James Lyons, and John Van Reenan, the chancellor's top economic adviser, are among those in the second-highest pay bracket. Last year, the BBC reported that Sir Keir's former chief of staff, Sue Gray, had a higher salary than the £166,786 the prime minister had been left her role, saying she "risked becoming a distraction", and was replaced by McSweeney, who was previously chief adviser to the prime minister and masterminded Labour's general election details of Gray's salary were leaked to the BBC, as the former senior civil servant was embroiled in internal rows in the early months of the Labour special advisers in the team were angry about being asked to take pay cuts. Overall, the pay bill for spads in 2024/25 was £ included £3.1m in severance costs, partly covering outgoing advisers from the previous Conservative of 31 March this year, there were 130 special advisers working for the over £76,000 are declared in bands of £5, was the only person in the £155,000 to £159,999 a veteran diplomat, was appointed as a special adviser last year, breaking with convention to take up the national security adviser role, which is usually held by a civil servant.
