A Flawed Framework: How the UK’s Online Safety Act Fails to Tackle Disinformation and Protects Powerful Press Interests
The recent riots in Southport, sparked by false information circulating online, have exposed a critical gap in the UK’s legal framework: the absence of specific laws addressing online disinformation. While existing legislation, such as the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Defamation Act 2013, offers limited recourse in certain cases, the much-touted Online Safety Act 2024 falls short of addressing the core issues that fueled the unrest. This failure stems, in large part, from the influence of powerful press lobbies that successfully secured sweeping exemptions for themselves, leaving a regulatory vacuum ripe for exploitation. The origins of the Southport disinformation, traced back to a dubious online entity posing as "Channel 3 News," highlight the vulnerability of the online landscape to malicious actors and the inadequacy of current regulations to counter them.
The lack of comprehensive legislation against online disinformation is not accidental. A determined campaign by powerful press organizations, notably the News Media Association (NMA) and the Society of Editors (SoE), played a significant role in shaping the Online Safety Act to protect their interests. Initially, the government’s 2019 Online Harms White Paper proposed a "duty of care" for online providers, requiring them to remove harmful content, including disinformation. This resonated with some segments of the national press that had long advocated for online censorship. However, when the scope of the proposal, encompassing "false or misleading information," became clear, the press establishment recognized a potential threat to their own practices. Fearing scrutiny and accountability for their own questionable content, they launched a fierce lobbying effort to secure exemptions.
The NMA and SoE launched an aggressive campaign against any form of regulation that could impact their online publications. The SoE demanded a "total exemption" for recognized media, while the NMA, in a vehemently worded 17-page submission, insisted on an "all-encompassing and enduring" exemption for news publishers and their content. This pressure effectively neutered the government’s initial ambition to tackle online harms broadly. The resulting Online Safety Act granted extensive exemptions to "recognized news publishers," defined broadly enough to encompass the very opinion-driven, often misleading content that plagues much of the national press.
The Act’s definition of "news-related material" is remarkably expansive, including "gossip about celebrities" and "opinion about matters relating to the news." This effectively shields a wide range of content, even that which may be considered inflammatory or biased, from regulatory oversight. Furthermore, the Act specifically exempts online comments and reviews, arguably some of the most toxic online spaces. The requirement for a standards code is easily met by the existence of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), despite its questionable track record. This comprehensive exemption not only allows misleading and harmful information to proliferate unchecked but also creates a loophole for bad actors masquerading as news publishers to spread disinformation with impunity.
The Act’s exemption extends beyond the content itself to how it is shared. Content from recognized news publishers shared on social media platforms remains exempt, placing a significant burden on platforms seeking to moderate or remove such material. Platforms are required to follow a cumbersome process of notifying publishers and justifying their actions, effectively deterring them from challenging powerful press organizations. This effectively empowers established media outlets to disseminate potentially harmful content through social media channels without fear of meaningful oversight. This is particularly concerning as much of the inflammatory rhetoric targeting vulnerable groups often originates in the right-wing press and is then amplified on social media.
The Online Safety Act, in its current form, is a demonstrably flawed piece of legislation. It not only fails to address the pressing issue of online disinformation effectively but also grants undue protection to powerful press interests, allowing them to operate with minimal accountability in the digital sphere. The Southport riots serve as a stark reminder of the real-world consequences of unchecked disinformation. The urgent need for meaningful regulatory reform is further underscored by the Prime Minister’s ongoing struggles with tech giants like Elon Musk and the government’s abandonment of the Leveson Inquiry recommendations for press self-regulation. Until these fundamental issues are addressed, the UK remains vulnerable to the destructive power of online disinformation. The current legislative landscape, far from fostering a safe and informed online environment, perpetuates a system where powerful interests are shielded from accountability while the public bears the brunt of the consequences.