Ofcom must intensify efforts on illegal online content, says Guardian

Ofcom imposed a £950,000 fine on a US-based suicide forum linked to over 160 UK deaths, marking an escalation in the regulator’s campaign to make the internet safer. Campaigners against online harms, including relatives of suicide victims, are justifiably angry that it has taken so long to reach this point. Even now, Ofcom is giving the website’s operator a chance to address “concerns” and avoid a court order that would block access to the site.

But if enforcement remains a tortuous process, at least the principle is clear. It is illegal to encourage or assist a suicide in England and Wales (in Scotland, such actions could lead to prosecution as reckless endangerment or a range of other offences). A situation where behaviour is tolerated online, when it would carry criminal penalties if carried out in person, cannot be allowed.

There is a parallel with the government’s recent pledge to bring the laws governing online pornography in line with analogue forms (DVDs and magazines). Belatedly, and in response to effective campaigning, ministers and regulators are making efforts to close the gap that divides the rules and norms of the offline world from the chaos of the internet.

No one should underestimate how hard this is. The internet is dominated by a handful of enormously wealthy US companies, over which the UK government has limited sway. Some overseas platforms have reportedly refused to pay Ofcom fines. Earlier this month Meta announced that it is taking the regulator to court over its fees and fines. Loopholes in the law make the regulator’s task harder. Under the Online Safety Act, search engines are required to “minimise the risk” of people encountering illegal content, but not to prevent it. Last week the suicide forum’s web address was searchable on Google, meaning that users could access it via a virtual private network.

Exerting democratic control in the digital space is among the biggest challenges for governments. Rapid technological advances mean that the act already needs updating to take on board the rollout of AI. Rules governing the behaviour of chatbots, particularly in their interactions with children, urgently need to be agreed.

But even longer-standing issues are not being tackled, as last week’s resignation letter from Jess Phillips, who quit the role of safeguarding minister, made clear. The proliferation of child sexual abuse imagery, and the huge increase in arrests linked to such material, is one of the most disturbing trends in crime. Yet according to Ms Phillips, detailed plans from the Home Office for a new law that would oblige tech companies to prevent the exchange of naked images on children’s devices were stalled by Downing Street.

Whatever other considerations may have contributed to Ms Phillips’ decision in a febrile week of politics, her frustration on that score will be shared by others. The government has pledged to halve violence against women and girls, but lacks a convincing strategy. Campaigners were entitled to expect more from Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership, particularly given his background as a former chief prosecutor. There is a debate to be had about the balance between online safety and free expression. But protecting children from sexual abuse, and blocking illegal material, should be among the priorities of any government. Working with Ofcom, ministers must ramp up their efforts.