Dr. Mary Aiken:

I am grateful for the committee's invitation to speak on the topic of online harassment, harmful communications and related offences. Notwithstanding the remit of this committee, the challenge is that in cyberspace, everything is connected, and therefore laws that attempt to address cyberbullying will arguably be ineffective in the absence of addressing a more comprehensive range of online harms. The United Kingdom online harm White Paper offers a thorough treatment of these issues, noting:

Illegal and unacceptable content and activity is widespread online, and UK users are concerned about what they see and experience on the internet. The prevalence of the most serious illegal content and activity, which threatens our national security or the physical safety of children, is unacceptable. Online platforms can be a tool for abuse and bullying, and they can be used to undermine our democratic values and debate. The impact of harmful content and activity can be particularly damaging for children, and there are growing concerns about the potential impact on their mental health and wellbeing ... The internet can be used to harass, bully or intimidate, especially people in vulnerable groups or in public life. Young adults or children may be exposed to harmful content that relates, for example, to self-harm or suicide. These experiences can have serious psychological and emotional impact. There are also emerging challenges about designed addiction to some digital services and excessive screen time.

Notably, the UK approach does not focus exclusively on fragmented aspects of harm. Rather, a broad range of harms is considered simultaneously, including online anonymous abuse, child sexual exploitation and abuse, harassment and intimidation directed at those in public life, cyberbullying, violence online, designed addiction, underage sharing of sexual imagery such as sexting, self-harm and suicide. The point centres on connectivity. There is a relationship between cyberbullying, self-esteem and self-harm. There is also a relationship between "sexted" images, harassment, online coercion and extortion. Many countries are in the process of developing new regulatory approaches to tackle online harms. However, none has as yet established a regulatory framework that tackles the connected range of online harms. The UK will be the first country to do this. I have advised the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on the role of technology in online harm. Significant progress has been made. As an important hub for technology companies, Ireland should be demonstrating cyber leadership but it has unfortunately made little or no progress to date despite numerous investigations and reports. At this point my submission references appendix A, which outlines a timeline going back to the Internet content governance advisory group in 2012.

Technology is new and fascinating. It has a pervasive, profound impact on humans and a highly seductive momentum. It has revolutionised access to knowledge, education and social reform. Nevertheless, left unfettered it has also exploited the vulnerabilities of our children. The influence of the Internet and social media is not an abstract concept. Its impact is not virtual; it impacts real lives in the real world. Monetising harm by designing intelligent algorithms to promote extreme content and harvest dollars from a child in the "attention economy" is not about celebrating access; it is about exploitation. In the bricks-and-mortar world, we have recognised for centuries that defending freedom for adults to speak and express opinions does not mean giving adults a licence to exploit and harm children. I passed an Eason store on the way here. I did not see any glossy magazines promoting self-harm, DIY suicide or anorexia made freely available to children beside the comics on the lower shelves. That is a repugnant idea of course, but this is the reality of the Internet.

We have been here before. We have seen the damage that is done when commercial interests are allowed to exploit vulnerability and addiction and to operate without restraint. We have seen it with big tobacco and more recently with the opioid crisis. We see common themes - wilful and deliberate exploitation and obfuscation; decisions made behind closed doors that either deliberately ignore evidence of harm or try to make it someone else’s problem; denial of responsibility and victim-blaming. While adults debate, posture and play "pass the blame parcel" the social technology industry keeps thriving, money keeps flowing and the online harm continues.

In deliberating on the broad area of online harm, we must ask ourselves the questions of who, what and when. Who is being harmed? Who has sought to exploit that harm, either by designing clever code to profit from it, wilfully ignoring its harmful effect or actively denying responsibility for it? What is the harm - what real lives are being damaged? What are the consequences of doing nothing? When did Internet stakeholders become aware of the damage being caused to children and, importantly, when did we all do something about it?

In 2014 I raised some of these issues in the report of the Internet content governance advisory group, which was convened in 2012. I also advised the Law Reform Commission, whose report on harmful communications and digital safety was published some three years ago. In the intervening five years, thousands more children have been unnecessarily exposed to repugnant, harmful, toxic and life-damaging material. This must stop. It demeans all of us. The Internet was designed on the premise that all users are equal. This is not the case. Some are more vulnerable than others and children are particularly vulnerable. Our challenge as a society is to help shape an Internet that is open and vibrant but also protects its users from harm. The Constitution requires the State and organs of the State to protect and vindicate as best it can from unjust attack. Article 42A affords additional rights by affirming "The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights." Exposing Irish children to a range of online harms is a fundamental breach of their constitutional rights. Our challenge as policymakers is not to engage in determined myopia and deliberate fragmentation strategies or to allow commercial stakeholders to perpetuate skilful deflection and obfuscation strategies. Our challenge is to urgently develop a new system of accountability in the form of legislative and statutory instruments and oversight that will replace the current failed model of self-regulation. A new Irish regulatory framework regarding online harm is urgently required, one that will make clear the technology industry's responsibility to protect Irish users, particularly our children, online.