Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

There are a few parts of section 3 that we will look to come back to with regard to amendments. A number of our amendments were ruled out of order and perhaps the uncoupling of some amendments from others may change that. I will put some of our concerns on the record with regard to section 3.

There needs to be a definition of "algorithm". Going back to the Minister's initial comments, the Minister spoke about a jumping-off point in the modernisation and regulation of online safety, yet we have a Bill without any definition of "algorithm". It is perhaps one of the most harmful aspects, in many ways, of the online worlds, and one that we struggle sometimes to comprehend and understand. The Bill actually uses the term "automated means", which is effectively an algorithm. It does not define, however, what "automated means" actually is. The purpose of my speaking to that section is to hopefully introduce a definition, or for the Minister to consider looking at the Bill to introduce a definition of "algorithm" into this section. It is no longer enough for us to be vague about the automated processes. This Bill is the place to look at that and the place to govern that. It often manipulates our online lives and it is strange to me that several sections of the Bill use the term "automated means" without a definition, and that no definition exists here for that or for "algorithm". They are closely related, to the best of my understanding, and we should flesh this out within the section.

Also in the context of "automated means", I refer to looking at the use of "recommender system" or other automated systems in this section. Basically, this function would potentially be for us to discuss, between now and Report Stage, whether we can introduce an opt-out for recommender systems. I do not mean recommender systems as a whole but ones that use a person's profile and micro-target users to actually recommend things to them, which can then increase the level of online safety, and especially in the areas we have spoken about today, whether that is eating disorders, conversion therapy and such things. This is so that there would be no actual micro-profiling of people and making recommendations to them. I believe that if we were to look at this in section 3, it would really enhance the Bill. It seems to be missing from that section. Obviously, it could belong elsewhere but on my reading I would hope to table an amendment there on Report Stage.

Between now and the next Stage, I believe that we should also look at the provision in section 3 on online harmful conduct. Basically this would be a technical amendment that would refer potentially to section 139B, where we could insert another amendment to ensure the definition of harmful online conduct is introduced to reflect the definition section, alongside the definition of harmful online content.

Finally, on section 3, again perhaps we could look at the recommender system. The recommender system basically means a fully or partially automated system used by an online platform to suggest in its online interface specific information to recipients of the service, including as a result of research initiated by the recipient, or otherwise determining the relative order or provenance of information displayed. It is important to put this on the record because when we attempted to put some of this into the Bill, the amendments were ruled out of order. They were seen as providing a cost. I would argue back on some of those because they are basic definitions of things that are already alluded to somewhat in the legislation. There may be room, were the Minister to see some merit in introducing such provisions, whereby the Minister herself could introduce some of these amendments. I am happy to meet the Minister or her departmental officials to send on the efforts that we had made to enhance the Bill in section 3. Perhaps this is something that the Minister and her Department would consider introducing on Report Stage.