Graham Smith

More than most subjects of lawmaking, online safety is an area where procedural legitimacy in the rulemaking process is essential because of what's at stake for rights, etc.

In the long-run, the optics of this move could be as damaging for the online regulatory project as the substance of it.

The Government has tabled an amendment in lieu that would grant Ministers the power to introduce restrictions on children’s use of internet services, following its ongoing consultation on children’s wellbeing. This would give the Government a significant delegated power to legislate in this area, despite the Bill containing very little policy detail explaining how it would work. In practice, the power would allow Ministers to require providers of internet services to impose restrictions on any “specified internet service” for children under a “specified age”. This could extend far beyond social media. In theory, it would allow restrictions on any designated website or category of websites, as well as services such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) or AI tools. The amendment provides no detail about the types of restrictions that could be imposed. Restrictions would ultimately be decided by Ministers and implemented through a Statutory Instrument. This would mean that Parliament could not amend the Minster’s decision. Scrutiny would be limited to a short debate followed by a vote to either approve or reject the measure. The proposed provision therefore embodies two undesirable legislative practices. First, it introduces an extensive new power at the final stage of the Bill’s parliamentary passage, when opportunities for debate and amendment are already constrained. Secondly, when Ministers come to exercise that power, the resulting Statutory Instrument would itself be subject to limited scrutiny and could not be amended by Parliament.

Good summary from @hansardsociety.bsky.social on how today's ~the children~ Commons debate on a social media ban for <16s is, regardless of your opinion on the issue, very bad lawmaking and government, rehashing (as I've said) bad ideas which were smacked out of the OSA years ago for a reason.

Tomorrow MPs face a choice:

Give Ministers a blank cheque to impose digital ID checks across any part of the Internet, or protect our rights.

They must say no to powers that’ll restrict our access to information unless we all prove we’re over 16.

Join over 570 people who’ve written to their MP ⬇️

In the UK, we have been here before. www.cyberleagle.com/2018/10/a-lo...

Is there a difference between 'a flexible mandate that allows [a regulator] to be nimble in response to emerging harms and technologies' and granting arbitrary powers to the regulator?

In the UK, we've been here before. www.cyberleagle.com/2018/10/a-lo...

Digital ID checkpoints could erupt across the Internet 🆔

The government is seeking a power grab. And it's not just social media.

Every adult will have to do ID checks to access whatever online services the government – any government – decides to restrict or curfew.

ORG's James Baker explains ⬇️

Investigation into the provider of two image board services for failing to comply with its duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 We are investigating whether a provider of two image board services has failed/is failing to comply with its duties under the Online Safety Act 2023

A new Ofcom investigation, this time into the provider of two online 'image board' services.

The fact of not naming the service, and the nature of duties the provider is alleged to be non-compliant in respect of, implies another low reach, high risk service.

www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safet...

“There is no such thing as the Digital Age of Consent.”

My post on part of the ‘Growing up in the Online World: a national consultation’, interpreting the proposals, and ‘emergency style’ DfE govt powers.

jenpersson.com/there-is-no-...

#onlineSafety #AV #DigitalID #SocialMediaBan #AgeVerification

Download advice on feeding newborns to teens

Reminds me of Swift’s Modest Proposal.

NZ evidently determined to learn nothing from the UK car crash of regulation by regulator.

New Zealand is moving towards a comprehensive online safety regulatory framework, with a new parliamentary report setting out recommendations for government.

Amongst them:
➡️DSA-style gradated content responsibility
➡️A new independent regulator, styled on the UK's Ofcom and IE's CnaM

Grokking the Online Safety Act: The chatbot blind spot in UK online safety law - CREATe

And concerns from an Edinburgh Napier Uni academic about why it’s not the right tool. www.create.ac.uk/blog/2026/02...

Our lot are headed in the same direction. bsky.app/profile/owen...

Having said that, I suppose they have gone this broad to cover off the Lords amendment on VPNs.

The extent to which every single one of these panics features people being shown all the previous ones – video games, TV, radio, novels – and insisting that no, no this time is *actually* different (even though the others said that too) is really approaching the Arrested Development meme levels

Shorthand for bad regulation that breeds worse regulation; plus, now, the method of doing it by taking executive powers.

A commentary from @terrorwatchdog.bsky.social terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/u...

Don't know about terrified, but I'm struggling to see how this cycle of dysfunctional regulation will be broken in the foreseeable future.

The bit about applicable Parliamentary procedure for regulations is at the end of each amendment.

Even the Lords amendment didn't go this far.

Either the drafters don't understand what they have done, or the government has completely lost it. Even Henry VIII would have blushed at taking powers to age-gate the entire internet.

Either the drafters don't understand what they have done, or the government has completely lost it. Even Henry VIII would have blushed at taking powers to age-gate the entire internet.

Screenshot showing part of a UK Government amendment to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill introducing one of several new clauses for the Online Safety Act: "Power to require internet service providers to restrict access by children to certain internet services"

Meanwhile in ping-pong on the CWS Bill, the UK Government has introduced clauses empowering itself to restrict access by children to specified internet services or features publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbi...

As @cyberleagle.bsky.social points out this isn't limited to OSA-regulated services

On the face of it, it seems to mean that e.g. any website, whether regulated under the OSA or not, could be required (by secondary legislation) to institute an age-gate, or even a usage limit or a curfew.

On the face of it, it seems to mean that e.g. any website, whether regulated under the OSA or not, could be required (by secondary legislation) to institute an age-gate, or even a usage limit or a curfew.

Have you seen the government's ping-pong amendments to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill? The scope is not even limited to OSA-regulated services. publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbi...

Have you seen the government's ping-pong amendments to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill? The scope is not even limited to OSA-regulated services. publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbi...

As to the role of the Delegated Powers Committee, for anyone not familiar with it. www.parliament.uk/site-informa...

I could almost feel sorry for whoever is landed with the task of drafting this. (There is, naturally, no attempt in this clause to define artificial intelligence.)