Dr. Eileen Culloty:

I thank the Chairman and members for this opportunity to contribute to the consultation process. The Bill is important legislation because the media environment has changed fundamentally and there are major concerns regarding online harms. These are complex issues. They relate to debates about the regulation of online platforms and the need to balance the mitigation of harms with the protection of rights and freedoms. In that context, it is imperative that the Bill provides sufficient clarity about the roles and functions of the new media commission. Only one role is identified in the Bill, that of the child safety commissioner. We recommend the inclusion of a media pluralism commissioner. This would, in keeping with the EU media freedom Act, address these critical concerns and threats with regard to the future of a viable media system in Ireland and a vibrant public sphere. Relatedly, we recommend that action be taken quickly on the content levy because it is imperative for the viability of Irish media and should be broadened to include wider support for the sector.

We note that the Bill does not reference disinformation. This is out of step with the EU Digital Services Act and the democracy action plan, both of which recognise disinformation as a harm that threatens society and democracy. Media regulators across Europe, including the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, are already monitoring the implementation of the code of practice on disinformation, so this falls within the remit of the media commission.

To date, there has been widespread criticism of online platforms. Much of this is about the lack of transparency and accountability relating to automated decision making, moderation and the responses of the platforms to harms. Much of the reporting and their transparency measures are in aggregate. For example, reports will note that three million pieces of bullying and harassment content were actioned in a given quarter but, unless there is sufficient context, it is impossible to analyse these data in a meaningful way or to evaluate whether the actions of the platforms are actually effective. Research is needed, as are clear obligations to report meaningful data, rather than more transparency reports.

In Australia, the Online Safety Act and the Office of the eSafety Commissioner have implemented an individual complaints mechanism. If the implementation of such a mechanism is not possible here, we recommend that platforms catering to children be required to fund a portion of prevention and intervention measures, such as counselling services and helpline services. This could also be considered as a component of providers’ duty of care.

In conclusion, we believe the Bill is a concrete step towards establishing media regulation that is fit for the 21st century. Our comments are intended to enhance the design and operation of a media commission that will serve the needs of the public and the media industry. I am happy to answer members' questions on behalf of the DCU institute for future media, society and democracy. My colleague, Dr. Milosevic, is present representing the National Anti-Bullying Research and Resource Centre.