Ms Julie Inman Grant:

The Senator raises three good and important questions. As I mentioned, we have about four regulatory schemes. We are now working through an additional scheme around adult cyber abuse. Definitions can be tricky for policymakers. The key is to get enough precision and understanding of the general consensus across the major social media sites, and where their policies lie. To give the Senator an example, serious cyberbullying of a child is anything that is intimidating, harassing, humiliating, or threatening. This is a high enough threshold, but it gives us some latitude to look at the content and context. One of the values of the citizens' service we provide when we interact either with the child, a guardian, or an educator, is that we can get the full story from them. This is where we can help serve as a safety net and bridge that inherent power imbalance that exists between the tech companies and the users. If the tech companies say that a report does not meet the threshold, there is not much recourse for that child to go through. Does Mr. Dagg want to give any specific examples of how he applies that latitude? Where does he see the importance of pitching that language and threshold?