Author: Sebastian Cuttill

What will the Online Safety Bill do?

All platforms in scope of the Bill will need to tackle and remove illegal material online, particularly material relating to terrorism and child sexual exploitation and abuse. The largest, highest-risk platforms (Category 1 providers such as Facebook) will have to address named categories of “legal but harmful” material accessed by adults. Providers will need to “make clear in their terms and conditions what is and is not acceptable on their site and enforce this”. These services will also have a duty to bring in user empowerment tools which would allow users to reduce their exposure to harmful content.

What protections are already in the Bill for media outlets?

The Bill states that platforms do not have any duties relating to content from recognised media outlets, which the Government believes will protect such content from being unfairly removed or restricted. For content to be protected in this way, a recognised media outlet must have the ‘principal purpose’ of producing ‘news-related material’ and must be subject to a standards code (eg. IPSO). Content from recognised media outlets has additional protections on Category 1 services such as Facebook.

Will the Bill protect specialist publishers?

At present, the PPA is concerned that the definitions of ‘news-related material’ are too narrow to provide protections for PPA members whose titles are already subject to a standards code (eg. IPSO). Despite the expert parliamentary committee recommending that Government work with industry bodies to ensure that protections for recognised media outlets encompass consumer magazine and business media publishers, the Bill has not been amended to reflect the immense value of specialist publishers’ content.

Why does this matter?

Protecting the trusted content provided by our publishers is vital to our industry. Research by Ofcom, the regulator which will oversee the online safety regime, shows that the UK public consider magazines to be more trusted than any other news medium. Platforms will face high penalties if they do not comply with the Bill, which means there is a danger that indiscriminate algorithms could remove trusted journalistic content.

What happens now?

We are encouraged however that Government has confirmed that ‘Ministers will also continue to consider how to ensure platforms do not remove content from recognised media outlets.’ Further, in an article in Conservative Home, the Secretary of State wrote: “I have every intention of further improving the requirements for platforms not to remove content from recognised media outlets during the passage of the bill”. The Bill will have a further reading in the coming weeks, meaning it will be debated in parliament.

What is the PPA doing?

The PPA has a dedicated Public Affairs Executive and we also work closely with a team of expert consultants whose role is to engage with Government on behalf of PPA members. We are continuing to speak with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and parliamentarians, to ensure that the media protections in the Bill reflect specialist publishers’ value as an indispensable element of the UK’s media ecosystem.

The OAP will look at the current regulations and regulators including whether they are properly empowered and funded. Additionally, the OAP will look at strengthening mechanisms currently in place, and those being developed, in order to equip regulators to ‘meet the challenges of the online sphere’ whilst maintaining a ‘pro-innovation and proportionate approach’.

The Government note that the following options could be considered:

Option 1: Self-regulatory approach: A voluntary approach to fraud would provide industry with the space to find a solution, relevant to each business model in the advertising industry.

Option 2: Statutory backstop: This could see an industry-led code that sets out how industry will proactively tackle fraud and protect consumers, in addition to a statutory backstop holding ad tech intermediaries and platforms to account. To note, the Government state that the ASA may not be the appropriate body to monitor the implementation of said code.

Option 3: Full statutory approach: Under this option, a statutory regulator would hold and use code-writing powers and carry out both regulation and enforcement. Intermediaries and platforms would also be held to account by a statutory regulator, which can enforce mechanisms which mandate transparency and hold the content host to full account.

Relating specifically to publishers, the Government proposes the following duties:

Record keeping of adverts (here the Government specifically recognises the need not to overburden smaller publishers).

Minimum standards for advertiser identity verification (only where publishers sell inventory direct to advertisers).

Customer empowerment tools.

Regarding the application of these proposed duties to publishers, Government states: ‘Measures suggested for publishers include record keeping, minimum standards for proactive review of content and threats, and customer empowerment tools. Due to the different concerns that relate to some publishers (e.g. freedom and sustainability of the press), a self-regulatory framework as outlined in Option 1 [a continuation of the self-regulatory approach] would likely be most appropriate. Backstopping certain codes related to publishers or applying full statutory regulation to these actors would likely not be appropriate.’

PPA are pleased that the Government has recognised that publishers should not be overburdened, and the acknowledgement that a continuation of the self-regulatory approach would be most appropriate for our industry is welcome.

Writing for the ConservativeHome website, Dorries states that ‘unelected Silicon Valley execs have become some of the most powerful people in the world’. She further argues that, instead of endangering free speech, the Bill will in fact create considerably stronger protections.

Responding to accusation that the Bill will be ‘a censor’s charter’, the MP claims that censorship is already happening, and that the Bill will put users in a much stronger position to challenge this. She also clarifies that the largest and most high-risk platforms will only have a duty to remove ‘legal but harmful’ content if it is already banned by their own terms and conditions. This measure is intended to reduce the risk of over-censorship by platforms.

PPA welcomes the Secretary of State’s commitment to protecting content from recognised media outlets, but continues to call for Government to ensure that the definitions of these media outlets encompasses consumer magazine and business media. The redrafted Bill will be presented to parliament on Thursday, and PPA will update members on all significant changes with impacts for publishers.

Discussing the impact of the Bill on our industry, PPA argues that independently regulated specialist publishers must be exempt from the scope of the Bill. We point out that, given consumers are increasingly seeking out specialist information sources online, a failure to exempt specialist publishers from the scope of the Bill will make the exemptions less effective over time.

PPA concludes that greater competition is necessary to guarantee an online space – consumer choice will compel platforms to prioritise the welfare of users. Giving the Digital Markets Unit strong statutory powers will also rebalance the relationship between platforms and publishers, helping guarantee sustainable funding for the reliable information sources that are critical to online safety.

Read the full piece here.

Read the PPA Decodes resource on the Digital Markets Unit.

PPA has been published in the New Statesman, arguing that greater digital competition through the Digital Markets Unit is necessary to ensure that platforms prioritise user safety. The new regime will also help to rebalance the relationship between platforms and publishers, guaranteeing that the trusted content that is fundamental to a safe online space is sustainably funded in the long term.

To help unpick the complex realm of digital regulation, PPA has created a Decodes resource focusing on the DMU. The paper explains the rationale for the new regime, the key concepts and powers, and the potential impacts for publishers and the digital advertising market.

We hope that by explaining the immense opportunity that digital regulation holds for publishers, we can bring the industry together as one voice to call on Government to introduce the legislation the DMU requires as soon as possible. If you are interested in joining the PPA’s newly formed Digital Regulation and Policy Forum, or would like to learn more about any part of our public affairs work, please email sebastian.cuttill@ppa.co.uk

The Digtal Markets Unit will introduce a new form of ex ante regulation for digital platforms with ‘strategic market status’, with tailored codes of conduct to target the source of platforms’ market power.

Recent media reports, citing sources from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, have suggested that the Government is keen to introduce legislation based on the Australian News Media Bargaining Code, which includes a mechanism to ensure publishers are fairly compensated for the value that their content brings to platforms.

Subsequently, in response to a question from former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport John Whittingdale, George Freeman MP confirmed that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was ‘tightening up on the intellectual property provisions, and we are minded to proceed with that legislation.’

PPA believes that it is critical that such legislation is introduced as soon as possible, ensuring that publishers can monetise digital channels sustainably in the long term, and guaranteeing the UK public’s access to trusted information on a wide range of topics.

The Government notes that the consultation follows a commitment to look into the matter made during the Autumn Budget due to concerns reported by businesses of a ‘potential tax imbalance between in-store retailers and online’. Funds from OST ‘could be used to rebalance the tax system, funding business rates relief for the retail sector’, given the significant changes in the retail market and the shift online.

No decisions have been made on whether to go ahead with an OST, or its scope if it were to be introduced. However, the consultation notes that the OECD’s definition of an e-commerce transaction provides an example of a definition that could be used: “the sale or purchase of goods or services, conducted over computer networks by methods specifically designed for the purpose of receiving or placing of orders”.

The consultation notes that it ‘is a matter for debate’ whether the digital products of ‘tangible equivalents’ (such as online magazines or online subscriptions) should be considered equivalent to their offline alternatives for the purposes of an OST.

Services which can be provided both online and offline, such as media services. could generate a ‘great deal of uncertainty and complexity’ when developing the scope of an OST. Media services are singled out as a particularly difficult case as 'it is not settled to what extent online media services compete with in-person consumption of media.' For example, online subscriptions could be considered both an equivalent to purchases of physical newspapers and also complementary.

Data can be used to generate revenue through advertising, understand what editorial content is popular, personalise content, and make strategic decisions about product development. The paper acknowledged that the largest digital platforms have a status quo advantage, with their upstream position allowing them to collect a wider range of data, whilst media companies often hold themselves to standards not observed by big tech.

In the case of the press sector, the paper stated that social media and tech companies are perceived to have better access to data than press organisations, as host platforms have access to first party data when users interact with publishers’ content. These users are effectively ‘anonymised’ from a publishers’ perspective.

Also, it was observed that single sign-on (SSO) through an Apple, Google or Facebook account reduces friction for users. However, this prevents a publisher accessing a users data in the same way they would if the user had a registered account with the publisher.

Organisations surveyed for the paper also expressed concern about the phasing out of third-party cookies, which could lead to a loss in advertising revenue – one large press organisation stated that they are finding it increasingly hard to fill ad space in Apple environments as they know so little about users.

Some press organisations are attempting to personalise content based on user data, but other publishers felt that this would undermine their editorial content and leave users in ‘filter bubbles’. A major concern for smaller organisations was a lack of resources to invest in data collection and management software.

The paper concluded that the biggest challenges raised by media organisations were linked to the explosion of competition in the media landscape: social media and online only content providers can often offer content to audiences in cheaper and easier to access formats, and big tech organisations are increasingly acting as gatekeepers to valuable data.