Security
Children’s Commissioner also furious with Ofcom over a string of failures
Children have told England’s Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, that the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) “has made absolutely no difference” to their ability to access harmful content online.
More than a year after the OSA’s key child protection duties took effect, de Souza told MPs and peers that young people had little understanding of the legislation or how it was intended to change their online experiences.
De Souza made the comments during the opening evidence session of the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee’s inquiry into the OSA’s implementation and impact.
Central to de Souza’s criticism was the legislation’s focus on moderating harmful content rather than addressing potentially harmful platform design features.
UK politicians had pushed for controls covering such features, either through the OSA or separate legislation, but none has materialized.
De Souza said she was “really cross” that there was no hard evidence showing the OSA had meaningfully changed how social media platforms operate. She contrasted that with the US, where legal pressure recently pushed Meta toward significant child safety concessions.
Concerns about addictive platform design are not new, but they have returned to prominence following Meta’s proposed $18 billion settlement in a US child safety case.
Without admitting wrongdoing, Zuckercorp would under the proposed settlement introduce two-hour daily limits for users under 18 on Facebook and Instagram, prompts intended to discourage endless scrolling, and measures addressing use during school hours and at night.
The proposal would also let children opt out of algorithmically ranked feeds, directly addressing concerns raised by de Souza and other UK lawmakers.
Discussing the proposed Meta settlement, de Souza said the OSA had “not been flexible enough” and had not “kept up with the time.” She argued that Ofcom and lawmakers should seek results comparable to those achieved through the US legal system, even if that required the legislation to evolve.
‘Furious’ with Ofcom
De Souza said she planned to exercise her statutory powers to compel Ofcom, the OSA’s regulator, to provide copies of the safety risk assessments submitted by technology companies.
The commissioner said Ofcom had refused to share the assessments with her, despite her position as “the most senior safeguarding person in this country for children,” and had indicated that it would resist disclosure even if she invoked those powers.
“One thing I did want to ask this committee was for your assistance in this matter, because I am planning to use my powers,” De Souza said.
“If we cannot even see the risk assessments that may well have put these [safety] mechanisms into place, or may not have, how on earth can we judge the efficacy of it?
“So I’ll leave that one with you, but I’m pretty furious about that.”
The obstacle is section 393(1) of the Communications Act 2003, which restricts Ofcom’s disclosure of information obtained through its regulatory functions.
Ofcom may disclose such information if the business concerned consents or if one of the statutory gateways in section 393(2) applies.
Asked whether compelling tech companies to complete risk assessments was enough to ensure meaningful change or whether further legislation was needed, the Children’s Commissioner said “we need a few things,” including for Ofcom to “use its teeth.”
Ofcom has materially upped its presence in the tech regulation landscape during the past year, stepping in on multiple occasions when needed.
Perhaps most notably this was at the height of the Grok nudifying furore, but also its sprawling list of investigations into pornography companies allegedly violating age verification requirements.
De Souza acknowledged all of this, and the fact that since the introduction of the latest US administration, UK politicians have not given the regulator the “air cover” needed to relentlessly pursue offenders.
Nevertheless, she said Ofcom had failed to bare its teeth as forcefully as the current technology landscape demanded and accused it of reacting to harms rather than anticipating them.
“If Ofcom is going to be the vehicle to protect our children… we need them to be getting ahead of the harms. And I don’t think they have.
“So when I talk around the country to children, what’s worrying them are things around AI, things around the nudifying apps… there are new harms, and we need Ofcom to be getting ahead of those. I don’t think they are.”
De Souza called on UK politicians “to be really strong and direct” in empowering Ofcom to pursue offending organizations.
“But how effective do I think they’ve been? Not effective enough.”
The commissioner also criticized Ofcom’s child safety codes under the OSA, which she said read more like technical documents for technology companies than protections designed for children.
She also called on Ofcom to “use all their powers,” impose “some big fines,” and act before new harms become entrenched.
The Register asked Ofcom to respond. A spokesperson said: “We work closely with the Children’s Commissioner and share her objectives to ensure children are safe online.
“In December, we published our analysis of risk assessments from the first year of the Online Safety Act being in force, and the improvements we expected to see from platforms.
“Our action has resulted in material improvements being made to risk assessments, ensuring that tech companies must implement all measures necessary to address the risks identified on their sites and apps.
“We are subject to laws that mean we’re restricted in what information we can disclose relating to businesses.” ®
————————————————
