Sharon Keogan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Digital Services Bill 2023 is weighty legislation, as is often the case with Bills that give effect to EU regulations. It covers quite a lot of ground and contains a mixed bag of provisions that cover consumer protection and the regulation of advertising algorithms to content moderation and the combating of child sex abuse material. Some of these provisions are obviously deserving of our full support but others have the capacity to give rise to grave concerns. The stated goal of the European Commission's DSA is to ensure greater harmonisation of the conditions affecting the provision of intermediary digital services in the particular online platforms that host content shared by their customers.

Before I get on to the subject of content moderation, I want to briefly mention pornography. I do not think we should be letting children watch pornography. There have been too many studies showing the ill effects of it, both mentally and socially. The past two years have seen a slew of reports on the increase in the number of teenagers who have reported being sexually assaulted when socialising with other teens and this has been directly linked to the consumption of often violent and extreme pornography. In its annual report, the voluntary organisation Children At Risk Ireland, said there had been a significant increase of 36% in the number of children being referred to it for harmful sexual behaviour. We are standing idly by while our young men and women are being hurt and damaged by this. Multiple states in the USA have introduced measures to block pornography for minors, as has our closest neighbour, the UK. Multiple telephone companies have begun blocking pornography sites by default. I strongly believe that the Houses of the Oireachtas should be examining taking steps in this direction as well.

Regarding the Bill, I have concerns about some aspects of the content moderation regime, particularly when it comes to curbing certain so-called forms or categories of speech while leaving these categories undefined. Under the DSA, the European Commission can put significant pressure on digital platforms to curb hate speech, disinformation and threats to civic discourse which, on the face of it, should have the full support of all decent and civic-minded folk. However, as recent months in Ireland have proven, these terms constitute what research fellow David Thunder calls "notoriously vague and slippery categories". Utterances which are dismissed as far-right dog-whistles one day often become Government Minister talking points a few months down the line as the establishment catches up with the opinions of the public. Imagine if such speech was illegal. The man in the pub could be prosecuted for saying the same thing as a Cabinet Minister, his only mistake being that he said it before the Government changed its mind. By their nature, anti-free speech laws become a large stick wielded by the State to enforce its own ideas of what is true.

The DSA creates entities called trusted flaggers to report illegal content they identify on large online platforms. Online platforms are required by the Act to respond promptly to reports of illegal content provided by these trusted flaggers nominated by member state-appointed digital service coordinators. The Act requires large online platforms to take the necessary measures to ensure that notices submitted by trusted flaggers acting within their designated area of expertise, through the notice and action mechanisms required by the regulations, are treated with priority. Platforms will face periodic audits of their actions in compliance with the Act by auditors working on behalf of the European Commission. If it deems that a large online platform such as X has not been in compliance with the DSA, the European Commission may fine said platform up to 6% of its gross annual global turnover. The kicker is that the idea of non-compliance is hard to quantify so platforms will not know the threshold until it is established through precedent. As they will not know at the outset what exactly is required in order to meet due diligence obligations of systemic risk management, it seems likely that companies wishing to avoid legal and financial headaches will err on the side of caution and will put on a show of compliance to avoid getting fined. In this sense, it is exactly like the hate speech Bill. By design, no one will know where the line in the sand lies and so all will be forced to self-police and self-censor. The legislation is not intended to be enforced by An Garda Síochána or the courts, but by fear. This legislation will create an atmosphere of legal uncertainty both for online platforms and their users. It heavily incentivises online platforms to police speech in a manner that aligns with the EU Commission, around vague categories like disinformation and hate speech, and this will obviously have repercussions for the free speech of users. The net effect of the legislation is to apply an almost irresistible pressure on social media platforms to play the counter-disinformation game in a way that will earn them a passing grade with the Commission's auditors and thus avoid getting hit with hefty fines.

By 17 February, we need to rock up to the EU and rubber stamp this legislation, which means it must go through four Stages in this House. This reminds me of the hate speech Bill . It got very little scrutiny in the Dáil and then it came to this House. Thanks to the fact that Senators were diligent and awake, we have stalled that legislation for now. I feel the same will happen with the Bill before us. Rushing this through is not the way forward. We need to spend time on this. We are not due to sit again until next Wednesday, which means we will get one day next week and one the week after to debate this and that will be it. That is not how we should do our business in this House. We are not giving enough time to this legislation. I do not agree with forcing online spaces, which are the town square of the world, to abide by the EU’s particular vision of reality so I will be voting against the Bill.