The Online Safety Act, at section 54, stipulates that: “OFCOM must produce guidance for providers of Part 3 services which focuses on content and activity — (a) in relation to which such providers have duties set out in this Part or Part 4, and (b) which disproportionately affects women and girls." Amongst other things, the guidance may include examples of best practice as well as highlight aspects of Codes of Practice which are particularly relevant.

Ahead of the conclusion of US-UK trade negotiations next week, William Perrin considers the potential significance of a report from the US Trade Representative commissioned by the White House in February , also due next week. (This commentary was originally published on LinkedIn). Significant to the UK/USA trade deal will be a 1 April report from the US Trade Representative who was asked - in a not-at-all-paranoically entitled White House Memorandum, “Defending American Companies and Innovators From Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties”, on 21 February - to:

Cross-party consensus has built up in recent years for a Parliamentary Committee on Digital Regulation to be set up. This article summarises the background, scopes the role and remit of such a Committee and sets out some of the practicalities related to establishing it. Recent debates in relation to the first set of Online Safety Act (OSA) regulations - on categorisation thresholds - have returned to this theme, given concerns over how far Ofcom’s is taking account of Parliamentary intent in its interpretation of the legislation and implementation of the framework, as well as the failure by DSIT, in laying these first regulations, to deliver on a promise made by the previous Government to enable Parliamentary Select Committees to scrutinise draft statutory instruments (SIs) before they are laid.

Baroness Bertin’s independent Pornography Review - Creating a Safer World: the challenge of regulating online pornography - was published on 27 February. It sets out 32 recommendations for the Government, which cover six key themes: Tackling violence against women and girls, creating a culture of positive masculinity Increasing accountability and onus on platforms for harmful pornographic content Protecting those most vulnerable to exploitation and harms Strengthening enforcement of pornography offences Future-proofing against tech-enabled harms Strengthening governance and oversight This response looks at three aspects of the review: its framing, its online-specific recommendations, and the Government’s response.

On 7 January, Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that he was ending the company’s partnerships with fact-checking organisations, removing a series of protections from its content moderation policies and ceasing automated detection and proactive enforcement in key policy areas. Meta’s own Oversight Board has raised questions as to the effects the change in proactive enforcement would have in practice. On 24 January, we wrote to the Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, to raise the alarm about what this announcement might mean for the safety of UK users and to recommend a number of urgent amendments to the Online Safety Act (OSA) to protect them.

The House of Lords will debate the Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025 on 24 February. Lord Clement-Jones has tabled a regret motion. This note, which is also available as a PDF at the bottom of the page, sets out a number of issues with the regulations as drafted, which are based on advice from Ofcom that does not follow the intent of Parliament, as well as the scrutiny procedure the Government has followed.

It was way back in March 2017 that the UK Government first made that commitment - to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online - in the Digital Strategy. Theresa May was Prime Minister; Karen Bradley was the DCMS Secretary of State; TikTok didn’t exist in the UK; and it would be a number of months before the first deepfake was created. Ofcom reported that “most parents continue to say that their child has a good balance between screen time and doing other things”; and the theme of that year’s Safer Internet Day was - rather optimistically - “unite for a better internet”.

We are publishing this statement with the support of the organisations and individuals listed below. Last February, the OSA Network published a statement in response to Ofcom’s consultation on its illegal harms proposal. It was signed by 23 organisations and experts representing the breadth of interests across our membership and was the culmination of many months of discussion with Ofcom on the issues. The headlines we raised in the statement were explored in more detail in the OSA Network’s full response and reflected in the public letter, and supporting evidence, from groups campaigning against Violence Against Women and Girls.

The publication, by Ofcom, of its illegal harms codes may have garnered all the media attention yesterday (16 December) but - as per the Written Ministerial Statement from the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology - DSIT has also published its response to Ofcom’s advice on categorisation of servicesand has laid the regulations along with an explanatory memorandum and an impact assessment. The Secretary of State’s decision to accept the advice, which excludes small but risky platforms from category one and therefore exempts them from the strongest possible duties under the Act, goes against strong exhortations from a variety of campaigners - including mental health and suicide prevention charities, as well as campaigners against racist and misogynistic hate and abuse.

Ofcom has today published its illegal harms statement which comprises the final illegal harms risk assessment guidance along with the final codes of practice for user-to-user services and search, setting out the measures regulated services will need to take to comply with their illegal harms duties under the Online Safety Act 2023. Alongside this, it has published its register of risks and its illegal content judgements guidance, along with the regime’s final record keeping and review guidance and the final enforcement guidance. All these products were initially published in draft for consultation last November.