During my time in Downing Street, I witnessed two Prime Ministers grapple with this thorny and emotive issue.
And the Online Safety Act, which sought to solve the issue, is a behemoth. Over 400 pages of legislation, six consultations, hundreds of parliamentary questions, and two years in prison for those who don’t comply.
The starkest number in this process, however, was not a legislative clause. It is the scores of victims and their families who wanted, needed, and campaigned hard to see change. Fast change.
Whitehall felt justified in taking the time to do it right though. In her time as Technology Secretary, Michelle Donelan was clear: precision was the only way to stop the framework being dragged into court and sending the legislation into a legal tailspin.
But I am not looking to relitigate past arguments on legislative process. Instead, it is worth reflecting on how the Government must learn from this as it takes its next bold step.
The Prime Minister’s decision to ban social media for under-16s is supported across the country. DSIT’s own research shows that 90% of parents back the ban. And the kids? They’re alright! Over 60% are in favour of restrictions.
This is a bold, popular decision. But as the PM himself has acknowledged, it is not without risk. Australian children are already using VPNs to bypass restrictions down under, while campaigners back home argue the rules don’t go far enough.
And – adding an interesting dynamic to an already complex field – multiplayer online games are now under the spotlight. This presents uncertainty to an industry that generates £8.8 billion for the UK economy. Remarkably – that generates twice the revenue of the film and TV.
It means that games like Minecraft – with its messaging function – will need to pore over the fine print to avoid potentially eyewatering fines. More broadly though, it represents more red tape for tech industry.
This speaks to a wider systemic issue that every Prime Minister faces: the trade-off between tighter regulation and economic growth.
Every new compliance burden, however important (and children’s safety is important), requires businesses to divert capital from innovation and expansion into legal and technical box-ticking.
This friction faces all government departments and their industries. And it is perhaps because tech pervades all aspects of our life that this particular industry rubs up against so many competing needs.
Take the debate over copyright and artificial intelligence. This pits two of the UK’s growth engines against each other. It forced Elton John into the room with Laura Kuenssberg and had every newspaper running the same front page:calling for the government to adopt European regulation that AI firms argue stifles growth.
No sensible politician would face down these cultural titans for the sake of some tech bros in San Francisco. Indeed, Whitehall has played it safe for now and opted for a ‘wait and see’ approach. And so we will wait to see a long-term solution.
I will round this blog off with an apology. A confession. It was me who said “the government will mainline AI into the veins of this great nation” in the press release for the AI Opportunities Action Plan.
But – while the jargon might be painful – its intention is important. The UK needs AI to succeed here if we are to embrace its opportunities.
Blog
