Written evidence from Glitch (DFF0024)

Glitch

Glitch is a not-for-profit organisation that exists to end online abuse. Its aim is to see an increase in digital citizenship across all online users. This includes instilling the beliefs that our online community is as real as our offline one, and that everyone should work together to make it a better place.

Glitch works to promote good digital citizenship and address online harms such as online abuse, online hate speech and information disorders, Glitch has developed and delivered various training including Digital Citizenship, Active Bystander and Digital Self Care and Self Defence, including bespoke training for women in public life. To date it has delivered this training to over 3,600 people in the UK and abroad.

Executive Summary

●        Glitch would contend that, in the current public narrative, there is a false trade-off between ‘free speech’ and ‘harassment’. This is because online abuse actually undermines free speech. In particular, it silences marginalised and disproportionately affected people in public life, such as women and women of colour.

●        Glitch would recommend that in order to tackle online abuse in public life: 

• More adults and children should take digital citizenship training;
• The Government and Parliament should ensure that laws around online abuse are tightened and their gendered-nature reflected;
• Social media companies should create a zero-tolerance culture on their platforms;
• The proposed new regulator for online harm should be granted a level of funding proportionate to the scale of the issue. It should also be able to take, in tightly defined circumstances, complaints for individuals and ‘super complaints’ from disproportionately affected groups;
• Policy makers should better understand the effect of intersectional identities on the scale and severity of abuse and work this into relevant areas of policy;

Questions

The right to speak freely on political matters is strongly protected. Can it be given the protection it needs without permitting harassment or hate speech against MPs?

1. Glitch believes that one ought to be cautious in framing the two concepts in opposition to one another. This is because such framing legitimises the more extreme narrative that any attempt to create reasonable and proportionate safeguards in the online world ought to be opposed as an ‘assault on free speech’.

2. Furthermore, the choice between free expression online and protection against harassment is a false one. Such harassment and hate speech can and does have a silencing effect, not only on MPs, but on candidates and activists, limiting their ability to express themselves and communicate with their constituents. [1]

3. For the population at large, online abuse disproportionately affects marginalised and vulnerable groups. This includes: women; people of colour; and people with disabilities, amongst others. There is also evidence that, in some cases, instances are on the rise. [2] [3]
4. Therefore, without safeguards against harassment or hate speech, free speech is undermined and diverse parliamentary representation is stifled. 

5. None of this is to say that there are not difficult legal questions to answer in relation to, for example, what constitutes ‘gross offensiveness’ online. Indeed, Glitch looks forward to the Law Commission’s forthcoming report on online communications for recommendations in this regard. However, although these questions are important, they miss the bigger picture: online abuse stifles free speech and particularly the free speech of marginalised groups. 

Is the balance between the right to political freedom of expression and the democratic requirement for MPs to be able to do their jobs safely and MPs’ and their families rights to privacy correct?

6. In Glitch’s opinion, the question ought to be re-framed. It is less about creating the right balance, and more about ensuring that the internet is a safe place for everyone to express their opinion. That means an internet where people are less likely to abuse others online and, where they do, there are appropriate mechanisms by which the issue can be addressed.

7. Digital citizenship training is an important piece of this puzzle. It shows people how to spot and safely intervene when they see someone being abused online, what the effects of online abuse are on democratic discourse, and what the law says about online abuse.[4]  This is different from standard ‘digital literacy’ training because it focuses on how people can change their online behaviour to produce a safer internet.[5] More such funding for this training needs to be made available.

8. Where abuse occurs, there should be effective legal remedies. In Glitch’s opinion this is not currently the case. Existing laws that should protect people from online abuse are inadequate and reporting and enforcement is patchy.

9. The law as it currently stands is inadequate to deal with instances of online abuse. In general, Glitch agrees with the findings of the Law Commission’s Report Abusive and Offensive Online Communications of November 2018. In particular, existing Acts (such as the Malicious Communications Act and the Communications Act) need to be tightened to give clearer guidance to courts and prosecutors when applying the law to the online realm.[6] In addition, the criminal law needs to be reviewed to ensure it adequately covers abusive practices that exist only online, such as ‘pile on’ harassment and ‘deep fake’ pornography.[7]

10. Where the law is adequate ‘it is not clear that offensive and abusive online communications are always treated and pursued as seriously as offline equivalents by law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’.[8] Clearly, this could be addressed by more and better targeted training about online abuse for those in the criminal justice system.

11. Indeed, as the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women makes clear in her report on Women in Politics, training for law enforcement on violence against women in politics-including online violence- would also help tackle the problem.[9] 

12. People do not report online abuse to the police because there is a lack of awareness about what constitutes an offence. Here again, funding for digital citizenship training and public awareness can play an important role.

What is the role of social media in relation to free speech and threats to MPs? How, if at all, should it be regulated?

13. Social media companies need to challenge a culture that leads users to expect abuse. This is particularly true of public figures, who face a disproportionately high threat of such abuse. This means creating a zero-tolerance culture and improving reporting mechanisms.

14. In order to create a zero-tolerance culture, social media companies can take a number of practical steps including stronger terms of service policies. This should include clear indications that engagements on platform are monitored and tracked, that the company fully cooperates with law enforcement, and there is a ‘one warning and then permanent suspension’ rule.

15. Platforms should also improve their reporting mechanisms. In particular, platforms should acknowledge all reports of inappropriate behaviour and notify the user of the steps being taken to address the issue. They should review those reports within 24 hours, send a warning to the flagged users, and then, if the problematic user persists, remove them from the platform.

16. There is also an important role for the new regulator to play. In this regard, Glitch broadly agrees with the provisions envisaged by the Government’s White Paper on online harms.[10]

17. However, there are issues with the envisaged ‘super complaints procedure’. In particular, Glitch believes that there ought to be certain, tightly defined, situations in which individuals can appeal to the regulator if they have exhausted all internal complaints procedures. This would truly empower the user and increase trust.

18. In addition, this ‘super complaints’ procedure could have a role if it allows for groups of affected users to highlight where a range of different harms are having a disproportionate or specific effect on a particular group of people, including Members of Parliament. This would allow the regulator to compel companies to take holistic action to specific steps to protect particular groups of people.  

19. Glitch also believes that the level of funding for the new regulator should be proportionate to the scale of the problem. Some of this funding should come from the service providers, potentially in the form of a ring-fencing of income from the proposed Digital Services Tax.

What types of political abuse are most prevalent? What is driving this abuse and what more can be done to counter it?

20. For the population at large, online abuse disproportionately affects marginalised and vulnerable groups. This includes: women; people of colour; and people with disabilities, amongst others. There is also evidence that, in some cases, instances are on the rise. [11] [12] [13]

21. This trend is replicated amongst political figures. For example, a 2016 survey of female parliamentarians in 39 countries showed that 41.8% reported ‘extremely humiliating or sexually charged images’ of themselves had been ‘spread through social media’.[14] Where people have intersectional identities, such as women of colour, the picture is worse still. Amnesty International’s research found that nearly half of all abusive messages sent to female MPs over a six-week period leading up to the 2017 general election were sent to Diane Abbott MP, the UK’s first black female MP, who received 10 times more abuse than any other woman MP during this period.[15]

22. What drives sexism, racism, homophobia and other forms of prejudice online are the same attitudes that drive it offline. However, research suggests that people feel freer to express prejudiced and abusive sentiments online than they do offline. 

23. For this reason, Glitch believes that any legal, regulatory and educational solutions must take into account the disproportionate impact of abuse on individuals facing intersectional discrimination.
24. In terms of the law, this could mean referring to some forms of online violence as acts of gender-based violence, as advocated by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Online Violence Against Women.[16]

25. It should also mean that the proposed new electoral law offence of intimidating parliamentary candidates must recognise the gendered and intersectional nature of the abuse suffered by women in public life.

26. In terms of the regulation envisaged in the Government’s White Paper on online harms, the Government should ensure that its plan to allow certain organisations to put in ‘super complaints’ to the regulator, include organisations or groups representing people with protected characteristics.

27. In terms of education it should mean that if (as Glitch hopes) the Government implements the recommendations of the Children’s Commissioner’s 2017 report Growing up Digital (which called for the creation of a compulsory digital citizenship programme for pupils aged 4 to 14) that intersectionality is adequately covered. [17]

28. In addition, it should also mean that in the delivery of the new standard for digital skills training in adult education, the sections on being responsible online are given due prominence and providers are encouraged to cover issues particularly relevant to those with protected characteristics and intersectional identities. 

What has already been done to identify the scale of the problem and address it?

29. Glitch would point to the studies referenced in this submission as providing evidence of the scale of online abuse, its impact on democracy and the disproportionate effect it has on vulnerable and marginalised groups. 

30. In terms of potential solutions, Glitch would point to the National Democratic Institute’s #think10 safety planning tool, which gives women in politics guidance on their personal safety, based on the country in which they work and their personal circumstances.[18]

31. A fuller list of initiatives undertaken by civil society actors around the globe is documented in the UN Special Rapporteur on Online Violence Against Women’s report of 2018.[19]

32. Glitch has also provided Digital Resilience training to female parliamentarians, councillors and spokeswomen. [20] Feedback suggests that “I found this workshop extremely valuable and immediately enacted some of the advice given. It was great to be able to discuss the issue and interact with others, sharing experiences, ideas and advice. I feel more confident to manage my online life and wish I had had this workshop much earlier.”

31/07/19