Keir Starmer has stated that ministers will review online disinformation legislation following the dissemination of lies that contributed to this month’s far-right violence.
During a visit to a police station on Friday, the prime minister stated that social media was “not a law-free zone.”.
He was asked about London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s remarks that the Online Safety Act was not fit for purpose and should be reconsidered.
When asked if he agreed with Khan, Starmer said, “I agree that we’ll have to look more broadly at social media after this disorder, but the focus right now has to be on dealing with the disorder and ensuring that our communities are safe and secure.”
There have been calls for the Online Safety Act, which allows the media regulator to sanction social media firms for failing to combat disinformation, to be enforced more promptly.
On social media, the prime minister stated: “The first thing I’d say is that this is not a lawless zone. And I believe that is evident from the prosecutions and punishments. We are scheduled to be sentenced today for our online conduct.
“That serves as a message to everyone that whether you’re directly or indirectly involved, you’re liable, and if you break the law, you’ll face the courts. So that’s what’s happening today: the sentencing.”
Khan said “I believe the government has quickly recognised the necessity for modifications to the Online Safety Act. I believe the government should rapidly determine whether it is fit for purpose. I don’t think it’s suited for purpose.”
On Friday, a minister cited Khan’s comment that “legitimate policy challenges” require legislative changes.
Nick Thomas-Symonds, the paymaster general, told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme that the government was ready to “quickly review and consider” the legislation and that police would “come after people” who incited violence online.
“If we need to act in accordance with internet safety legislation, we will. Sadiq Khan challenges us to immediately evaluate and consider it, which we shall do. That’s a serious policy dilemma, and it’s critical to get it properly.
“But, regardless of that policy debate, people who are now doing illegal things online, such as inciting violence, encouraging violence, or organising violence, are breaking the law, and if you are doing that now, the police will come after you.
“They will also come after you if you are behaving like that online as well,” he told me.
The act, which went into effect in October, gives Ofcom the authority to fine social media companies up to £18 million, or 10% of their global revenue, if they fail to take strong action against content inciting violence or terrorism.
Ofcom is still developing instructions for how to apply the law, and enforcement is not likely to begin until next year. Existing prohibitions on inciting violence are based on the 1986 Public Order Act, which was enacted long before social media existed and mandates authorities to search online sites for potential violations.
Khan continued by stating that there were “things that responsible social media platforms could do,” but he refrained from commenting on whether or not the government or politicians ought to stop using social media sites like X.
He made the following statement: “That was an argument that was made many years ago about some newspapers, and the reality is that it is our job as politicians to reach the electorate. This is especially true when you have people playing on people’s fears.”
One of the ways in which we may address the concerns of individuals is by utilising the medium that is used by the general public, which is social media platforms. When he was asked about boycotting a platform, he responded, “You can’t cut off your nose to spite your face.”
Khan made the following statement regarding the responsibility of social media platforms to assist in combating the spread of falsehoods on the internet: “If they don’t sort their own house out, regulation is being brought about.”