Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 40, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(2A) The Commission shall ensure the status as a trusted flagger is not awarded to an entity which is partisan and seeks the status as a trusted flagger as means of controlling or influencing content.”.

The role of trusted flagger is incredibly important. To me, it is central to this legislation. At its core, it is a matter of ensuring we have a safe and predictable online environment, although sometimes I go online and I wonder whether it is possible to make it safe and predictable. We live in hope. That is at the heart of this. These roles will have an impact on freedom of expression. On Committee Stage, we discussed the potential issues arising from this. While people obviously have a constitutional right to freely express their convictions and opinions, it is a qualified right. Under the Constitution, that right can be limited in the interests of public order and morality.

The point I wish to make is that there is a need to ensure entities with a partisan agenda, an agenda which is intent on shaping or controlling content to suit their own agenda and their own needs, are not permitted. We want a space where people can connect online, where ideas can be shared and where people can engage in robust debate, which can sometimes be a euphemism for something else but I genuinely mean robust debate. It is important this is done in a way which ensures safety and proper safeguards against disinformation. My fear is that all of this could be undone if vested interests manage to obtain the position of trusted flagger to go about shaping the online space in a negative manner to suit their own agenda. Effectively, we are allowing or facilitating people and giving them the power to edit the Internet. That is pretty much where this is. Therefore, that role is very important.

I spoke about this at length. There are entities in this State which on the face of it might be very well respected, might even have the title institute or something very grand like that, but have a very clear agenda. While they might tick all of the boxes on one level, they will use the position of trusted flagger to further that agenda. I will not name any entities here but we know who they are. They use every opportunity and every tool at their disposal. If they are to become trusted flaggers, my concern is they will use that in a way that is not conducive to that flourishing online space, that they will actually use it to shut down the activities of those they disagree with, and that they will use their status as trusted flagger to police in an aggressive way other people's right to self-expression. The amendments I have tabled on trusted flaggers have a theme and it is one of being perhaps overly cautious. I do not think so. We would be right to be cautious with this legislation. It is huge and very important, and for me the status of trusted flagger is one which is absolutely and definitely deserving of the highest status, but we need to be alive to the fact that once an entity is granted the status of trusted flagger, we are conferring huge powers on it.

I will also speak to amendment No. 7 as we need to have the details of everything the trusted flaggers are doing and have those collected and published. We need to be aware of what they are doing and that needs to be in the public domain. We need to have scrutiny of that. That is to ensure the intention is not abused. That is not to create an additional burden for anyone but is to ensure the intention of this legislation is substantially delivered upon. I know we had a fairly extensive debate about this on Committee Stage but, again, I would welcome the Minister of State's views on the issues raised by these amendments.

See this speech in context