The differentiated duty of care: a response to the Online Harms White Paper.

A consensus has formed that the negative social externalities of online harms combined with huge market power of internet intermediaries justify regulation of online service providers.[1] Fake news, foreign interference in democracy and a business model based on exploitation of engagement via behavioural data have consolidated a political will for new policies, and the government's White Paper proposes a new social media regulator with the power to fine companies that fail to reduce exposure to harmful content. The White Paper proposes, rather than defining a size threshold triggering regulation, to locate discretion with the regulator to decide where to place regulatory emphasis: the regulator will have to decide on the basis of evidence, what the harm reduction priorities are at any one time. So both illegal and harmful content should be part of the regulator's remit, but the regulator should avoid muddying the distinction between them. In effect, each company would be responsible to observe a general regulator-derived code for dealing with speech that clearly meets a standard of illegality, and a company-specific or sector-wide voluntary code that reflects the terms of service of the company. [Extracted from the article]