February 25, 2019

The Chief Executive of IPSO, Matt Tee, has written a blog piece responding to publication of the DCMS Select Committee report, noting that, “the discovery of the Facebook data issues changed the nature of the Inquiry and extended it to the point that the report has only just been published”.

While the report talks about “platforms”, Matt Tee says, “it concentrates almost exclusively on Facebook and the companies that use its data to target and deliver “advertising” to selected audiences. Much of the Inquiry focuses on using Facebook for political messages and advertising and the effect that may have had in international elections and especially the Brexit referendum.”

Mr Tee says many of the Committee’s numerous recommendations “seem sensible”, as they seek to resolve the “vexed” issues of “platform” v “publisher”, by suggesting a new category for tech companies and saying that they should have a legal liability to act against harmful or illegal content, underpinned by a code of ethics, such as the Broadcasting Code. Further, the powers of existing regulators should be extended to enable them to require information from tech companies, including the workings of their algorithms.

Mr Tee observes that the Committee also recommends that all political “advertising” should be publicly available, including the source of the funding. They also call for all political parties to work with the ICO, Cabinet Office and Electoral Commission to improve transparency over commonly held data sets.

However, Mr Tee says, there are “several significant issues that may impinge on the implementation of the Committee’s response. Two of them are particularly relevant to IPSO”.

According to Mr Tee, the first issue is globalisation, as the tech companies are global and their platforms can be accessed almost worldwide. “Assuming that a UK regulator is given a power to enforce Facebook’s liability to act against harmful or illegal content, how is the regulator going to define which content is within the jurisdiction? And is the regulator (as opposed to the courts) going to decide when content is illegal?” Mr Tee asks.

The second issue is political advertising. Mr Tee says: “Much of this content may not even look like an advert. It may not mention a party or cause, but it will have been paid for with the intention of changing people’s views in a way that will advance a party or cause. Political advertising, even outside of the tech environment is already a regulatory anomaly – IPSO doesn’t regulate paid for content (and expects it to be clearly identified as such), however much it looks like editorial. The Advertising Standards Authority, which does in some instances, doesn’t regulate political advertising …”. To read the blog piece in full, click here.