Why Annabelle Ewing Opposes the UK’s Online Safety Bill as It Stands
Annabelle Ewing’s objection to the UK Online Safety Bill is rooted in a concern that deserves close attention: protecting people online should not give ministers, regulators or technology companies excessive control over lawful speech. The proposal aims to address serious harms, especially those affecting children, but its broad duties and enforcement powers have raised difficult questions about proportionality.
For Ewing, the issue also reflects a wider constitutional principle. Decisions affecting Scotland’s digital economy, public debate and civil liberties should be scrutinised carefully at Westminster, with clear democratic safeguards and respect for devolved responsibilities. Her political work and record can be explored through the campaign website, which sets out her priorities for representing Ochil and South Perthshire.
These concerns are relevant in Australia, where households in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth increasingly rely on social platforms for news, community information, shopping and political discussion. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner and Online Safety Act provide a useful comparison: online regulation can address abuse, but enforcement must remain transparent, practical and consistent with freedom of expression.
A broad duty with constitutional reach
The bill places wide-ranging duties on platforms that host user-generated content. Companies would be expected to assess risks, remove illegal material and manage content that may be considered harmful to adults or children. The difficulty is that terms such as “harmful” can be open to interpretation, leaving private companies to decide what speech should remain visible.
Ewing’s objection is therefore less about rejecting online safety than questioning who makes these decisions and under what rules. If platforms fear large fines or regulatory action, they may remove borderline material automatically. That could affect political criticism, journalism, satire and campaign messages, even where the content is lawful.
A campaign focused on Scotland’s voice at Westminster naturally places democratic accountability at the centre of this debate. Regulations with consequences for public conversation should be precise, reviewable and subject to effective parliamentary oversight.
Protecting children without weakening privacy
Children need protection from grooming, exploitation, violent material and manipulative design. Stronger reporting systems, better moderation and digital education can help. However, age verification and identity checks may create new privacy risks, especially when platforms collect more personal information to prove a user’s age.
Encryption is another sensitive area. Private messaging is used by families, community groups, legal professionals and journalists, as well as by people committing crimes. Measures that pressure services to scan private communications could undermine secure communication for everyone. A proportionate policy should target harmful conduct while preserving legitimate privacy.
Australian families already encounter these trade-offs through school communication apps, online gaming and social media. The 2024 Australian law establishing a minimum age framework for social media shows how quickly child-safety policy can move into everyday life. Its success will depend on clear rules, privacy protections and practical enforcement rather than broad promises.
The free-expression problem
The central criticism is that the bill may encourage precautionary censorship. Large platforms have the resources to employ lawyers and moderators, but smaller publishers, community organisations and independent creators may struggle to interpret complex duties. Removing lawful content can become the safest commercial choice.
That matters during elections and periods of public controversy. A post challenging government policy, discussing Scottish independence or criticising a corporation should not be treated like incitement or child abuse. Regulators need a clear distinction between illegal material, genuinely harmful conduct and opinions that are merely unpopular.
| Policy concern | Possible benefit | Risk requiring safeguards |
|---|---|---|
| Removal of illegal content | Faster action against abuse and exploitation | Mistakes may suppress lawful speech |
| Age assurance | Better protection for children | Excessive collection of identity data |
| Platform risk assessments | More accountable technology companies | Smaller services may face disproportionate costs |
| Regulatory fines | Stronger incentives to comply | Fear of penalties may encourage over-removal |
| Private-message monitoring | Detection of serious crimes | Weaker encryption and reduced privacy |
What Australia can learn from the debate
Australia has its own regulatory architecture, including the eSafety Commissioner’s complaints and removal powers. That system demonstrates the value of a specialist body, but it also highlights the need for due process, accessible appeals and public explanations of enforcement decisions. People in Adelaide or Canberra should be able to understand why content was restricted and how to challenge an error.
The local media market adds another layer. Australians often receive breaking news through Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and smaller digital outlets, while regional communities depend on online groups for flood updates, local events and public notices. A rule designed for global platforms can have unintended consequences for volunteer-run pages and small Australian businesses.
Ewing’s position points towards a rights-based approach: protect children, pursue criminal behaviour and hold platforms accountable, while preserving open political discussion. The same balance is valuable in Australia, where online safety legislation must work across metropolitan areas, regional towns and remote communities.
A more precise policy direction
A revised framework could address serious harms without granting unclear powers or making platforms the final judges of public debate. It should distinguish illegal content from lawful but controversial material, require independent review and protect encrypted services unless a narrowly defined legal threshold is met.
Practical safeguards could include:
- Define regulated harms in precise, publicly understandable terms.
- Require platforms to explain removals and provide a meaningful appeal.
- Protect journalism, political criticism, satire and academic discussion.
- Limit age-assurance data collection and prohibit unnecessary retention.
- Require independent audits of automated moderation systems.
- Give small publishers and community groups proportionate compliance duties.
- Publish regular reports on errors, removals and regulatory interventions.
These measures would strengthen public trust. They would also reduce the risk that online safety becomes a justification for broad censorship or unaccountable private decision-making.
A democratic choice about digital rights
For Ewing, opposing the bill in its current form is part of a wider commitment to accountable government and Scotland’s ability to shape its future. Online regulation is not a technical side issue: it affects elections, businesses, families, campaigners and the right to participate in public life.
Australians can recognise the stakes in their own routines, from checking a local Facebook group in Perth to following parliamentary news on a phone in Canberra. The best regulation should make digital spaces safer while keeping them open, private and politically diverse.
People who value careful scrutiny of Westminster legislation can follow Annabelle Ewing’s campaign, read her policy commitments and support informed discussion about Scotland’s representation. Sharing reliable information, attending local campaign events and engaging with democratic debate are practical ways to keep digital rights and public accountability in view.