The House of Commons committee on culture, media and sport said
that a body should be set up to police user-submitted content
because companies' own regulation of content was
"unsatisfactory".
The committee has backed a proposal for a UK Council for Child
Internet Safety to act as an internet industry self regulatory body
to force companies to take control of the content they publish.
The committee has also said that all companies should screen all
content before it is hosted online. In the hearings leading to the
committee's report, "Harmful content on the Internet and in video
Games", Google told the committee that its video subsidiary YouTube
received 10 hours of video material for posting every minute.
"Sites which host user-generated content – typically photos and
videos uploaded by members of the public – have taken some steps to
set minimum standards for that content. They could and should do
more," said the report. "It is not standard practice for staff
employed by social networking sites or video-sharing sites to
preview content before it can be viewed by consumers. Some firms do
not even undertake routine review of material uploaded, claiming
that the volumes involved make it impractical."
"We were not persuaded by this argument, and we recommend that
proactive review of content should be standard practice for sites
hosting user-generated content," it said.
The committee also recommended that publishers provide a
one-click method of reporting material to law enforcement agencies,
not just to site owners.
The committee said that though self regulation is attractive, it
has failed in the internet industry and needed to be stricter.
"Rather than leap to statutory regulation, we propose a tighter
form of self-regulation, under which the industry would speedily
establish a self-regulatory body to draw up agreed minimum
standards based upon the recommendations of the UK Council for
Child Internet Safety, monitor their effectiveness, publish
performance statistics, and adjudicate on complaints," said the
committee's proposal. "In time, the new body might also take on the
task of setting rules governing practice in other areas such as
online piracy and peer to peer file-sharing, and targeted or
so-called 'behavioural' advertising."
Internet service providers and website operators often refuse to
pre-screen material because in doing so they make it more likely
that they will be held responsible for it in any defamation action
or another case based on the content of the material. If they have
not pre-approved or even seen the material it is far less likely
that they will bear legal responsibility for it.
The committee said that this was an unfortunate consequence of
the law, and urged the Government to clarify publishers' liability
in such as way as to encourage responsible publishing.
"We do not believe that it is in the public interest for
Internet service providers or networking sites to neglect screening
content because of a fear that they will become liable under the
terms of the EC E-Commerce Directive for material which is illegal
but which is not identified," it said. "It would be perverse if the
law were to make such sites more vulnerable for trying to offer
protection to consumers."
"We recommend that Ofcom or the Government should set out their
interpretation of when the E-commerce Directive will place upon
Internet service providers liability for content which they host or
to which they enable access. Ultimately, the Government should be
prepared to seek amendment to the Directive if it is preventing
ISPs and websites from exercising more rigorous controls over
content," it said.
The committee also said that it worried about children's privacy
on social networking sites, and that such sites' privacy settings
should be at their highest by default.
"It is clear that many users of social networking sites,
particularly children, do not realise that by posting information
about themselves, they may be making it publicly available for all
to see," it said. "We recommend that social networking sites should
have a default setting restricting access and that users should be
required to take a deliberate decision to make their personal
information more widely available."
