Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 2 June 2021
Joint Committee on Media, Tourism, Arts, Culture, Sport and the Gaeltacht
General Scheme of the Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill 2020: Discussion (Resumed)
Mr. Paddy McGeoghegan:
I thank Deputy Mythen for the questions. He asked what defines photosensitive content. For flashing it is anything between three to 30 flashes per second, commonly known as hertz. That is what experts agree is potentially triggering content. However, in my opening statement I made reference to the individual nature of epilepsy. Someone might be triggered by something over 30 or below three flashes per second. In addition, you need to bear in mind that in respect of photosensitive content, patterns and transitions between colours that are moving can potentially trigger a seizure as well. Harking back to the individual nature of epilepsy, what triggers one person would not necessarily trigger another. Everyone's epilepsy is different.
As to what is currently in place, in my answer to Deputy Griffin I made reference to how this is very much a self-regulated area where broadcasters and content creators test their content before releasing it and have procedures in place. Commonly, they use two methods called the Harding flash and pattern analyser, FPA, and photosensitive epilepsy analysis tool, PEAT, analysis. As part of that, they upload their content and the analysis will show where content is potentially photosensitive. That is potentially where a lot of the warnings to which Deputy Mythen referred come from. The content has been tested. What we are talking about is a bit different because these are videos that are being distributed and manipulated intentionally to cause a seizure in a person. I repeat the point that it is hard to put words on what the thought process behind that is. Those videos are a bit different from the content that is self-regulated through the testing methods. The definition we have put forward refers to something which is likely to stimulate a medical emergency in a person and where it is reasonable to assume that was the intention. Going back to the reference to a person sharing a video from a nightclub, that is a lot different from a person maliciously throwing out pieces of content one after the other into the endless world of the Internet, actually targeting people and trying to trigger a seizure in a person. I hope that answers the Deputy's questions. If not, he can come back to me.
No comments