Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 163:

In page 78, to delete lines 36 to 40, and in page 79, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following: "139D.(1) In this Part, 'age-inappropriate online content' means online content that either—

(a) is likely to be unsuitable for children (either generally or below a particular age), having regard to their capabilities, their development, and their rights and interests, in particular content consisting of—

(i) pornography, or

(ii) realistic representations of, or of the effects of, gross or gratuitous violence or acts of cruelty,

or

(b) consists of online advertisements or commercial communications which are age-inappropriate, including those advertising—

(i) high salt or fat foods,

(ii) alcohol, or

(iii) gambling.".

Amendment No. 163 suggests a different approach to tackle the problem of advertisements that may be harmful to children. This was discussed in one of our previous meetings with the Department and it seemed interested by this approach at the time. I am not sure if this still the case. Section 139D of the Bill defines a separate category of "age-inappropriate content", which is not the same as harmful content but rather something which adults can be safely exposed to but children cannot. In the Bill, it is defined as including pornography or representations of violence.

This is a very helpful category to define within the Bill. We need to acknowledge that there are some types of content to which adults can be safely exposed, while children cannot. It is strange to me then that this category of content is defined but is barely used at all in any of the later mechanisms set up by the Bill. The only place it seems to be used is when issuing guidance materials by the commission. There it has the option of having regard to the risks of exposure to age-inappropriate content.

Since the Bill already goes to the trouble of defining this special category of material that is suitable for adults but not children, we could better use that definition by expanding it and perhaps adding further mechanisms later in the Bill whereby that type of content should be limited automatically by platforms.For example, there is a stipulation later in the Bill - I might have to come back on the section; I think it is section 139 but I will double-check. It stipulates that the commission can demand content is either limited or removed. If it is outright harmful content, it can be removed, but the power of limiting content remains vague. Why not attach this power specifically to age-inappropriate content? Then the platforms - they already do this in many cases - could use automated means to detect and limit age-inappropriate content, in order that it never appears on the timeline of minors. This age-inappropriate content could include age-inappropriate advertising, as we discussed in previous amendments. This would be a new approach to limiting that kind of advertising.

Our amendment seeks to insert a new paragraph to extend the definition of age-inappropriate online content to include advertisements for products that are potentially harmful to the public health of minors. This would allow for a ban on targeting of this type of advertising at children, while still allowing it to be targeted at adults on online platforms. This is a different and possibly better mechanism to control advertising to children within the Bill. Currently, this seems to be left up to the media service and online safety codes, and it is not clear what type of advertising will actually be banned to children following the development of these codes. By better utilising the definition of age-inappropriate content, and actually defining certain types of advertising as age-inappropriate content, we can hardwire child safety measures into the Bill. We can ensure that we are explicitly identifying that these types of advertising are harmful to children, which we know they are. Also, it is a more efficient use of the mechanisms already created within the Bill, as currently the useful category of age-inappropriate content is poorly used within the remainder of the Bill.

Amendment No. 165 seeks to add a subsection to section 139D, providing that notwithstanding anything in this section, content which seeks to educate children on the effects of violence or acts of cruelty in an age-appropriate manner shall not be considered age-inappropriate online content. This is to ensure that educational material is still available on these subjects and is not unduly restricted.