Legislative Timeline:
Digital Economy Act of 2017: Section 3 known as the “Porn Ban” or “Porn license” dropped due to confusion about functionality. The government knew this at the time and the function rather than the principle being in question is what allowed the Online Harms Bill to become what it is.
https://www.engadget.com/2017-05-03-digital-economy-act-explainer.html
Act is a mixture of miscellaneous measures including boilerplate bill capping, tweaked Ofcom remit expansions and.
Section 3 was the headline grabber and seems designed to be a “big ask” to be rowed back on to divert attention away from the rest of the bill, most crucially the “Digital Governance” section, which codifies in law government departments ability to share any and all information they hold on your for any reason–effectively creating a UK digital ID database by stealth.
“Online Harms” white paper published, complete with hilarious “easy read” version:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper
October 2019: after repeated delays (and open mockery) the plan for “Section 3” is dropped after technical functionality deemed impossible at present.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50073102
May 2021: “Online Harms” framework formally becomes the “Online Safety Bill,” but with many delays and rewrites, adding platitudes and expanding scope of the bill.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137
February 2022: Digital Economy Act Section 3 fully replaced by Online Harms bill now covering both “user to user” promography and “commerical” pornography for age verification.
Current Draft of the bill: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0121/220121.pdf
“Online Harms”
The Easy Read version of the white paper contains some stunning admission, such as the framework being meant to “deal with information or activity that puts our way of life in the UK at risk. This can include: Being a threat to integration in the UK.”
“There is also a real danger that some people use information that is not true, to go against our democratic values.”
Online Harms framework commented on by Tony Blair institute: https://institute.global/policy/online-harms-our-view-uk-government-plans
https://institute.global/policy/social-media-futures-interventions-against-online-unpleasantness
ocus on a surface level is on “child safety,” but the majority of the proposals deal with content for adults not children.
The white paper also touches on one of the most controversial aspects of the bill: “Legal but Harmful” information:
“Tweaks” coming but nothing concrete, article does layout how the “child protection” aspect makes it basically moot to add fig leaves https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/20/uk-online-safety-bill-legal-but-harmful-changes/?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce
White paper and bill also propose to “protect content of democratic importance.”
Ofcom:
Sweeping powers for Ofcom as the internet essentially now classed as a broadcaster in the vein of a TV station.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/240442/online-safety-roadmap.pdf
Ofcom has the power to punish companies for “destroying evidence” meaning full logging of user activity is now law.
Ofcom also saw its attack on Bitchute as a test case for enforcement of the OSB: https://archive.ph/D6fTh
Age Verification is non functional by design, it is meant to push unified digital I.D.
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/age-verification-in-the-online-safety-bill/
Digital ID and biometrics push: https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/the-online-safety-bill-and-the-case-for-a-digital-identity-utility/amp/
Meshes perfectly with “UK digital identity and attributes trust framework,” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-digital-identity-and-attributes-trust-framework-beta-version/uk-digital-identity-and-attributes-trust-framework-beta-version
The Regime Finds a Martyr: Molly Russell
Guardian’s Dan Milmo writes three articles a day breathlessly pushing the bill as a cure for teen suicide: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/danmilmo
Her father seems to be some kind of Online Safety Bill crisis actor, using every breath to emotionally manipulate you on behalf of the UK government: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63073489
NGOs and charities calling for the bill as an “emergency child protection measure”
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/news-opinion/2020/six-tests/
This is the “Jo Cox” of the online harms bill.
Protecting children from “Self harm content” has become the main justifying factor of the bill, reporting on the renewed porn-license, new ofcom powers, “harmful but legal” framework and “misinformation” are completely drowned out.
“Online Safety” has better SEO than “online harms” as the older framework received scathing reception. The bill itself was largely shielded from scrutiny by covid and the ukraine narrative.
Definition of disinformation is a key “legal but harmful” aspect:
“Medical misinformation” added to the text of the bill: https://unherd.com/thepost/health-misinformation-the-latest-addition-to-online-safety-bill/
‘Fact checkers’ say the bill needs to go further
https://fullfact.org/about/policy/online-safety-bill/
U.K. government throws the kitchen sink at the Online Safety bill, adding that it now combat’s “Russian propaganda” and “state disinformation.”
Bill has become a catch all for any and all online activity the regime deems problematic.
“Protection from porn” narrative seems hollow when this is default policy:
https://mercatornet.com/google-and-the-woke-morality-police-cancel-anti-porn-apps/81236/