Connect with us

NEWS

UK Online Harms Bill, coming next year, will propose fines of up to 10% of annual turnover for breaching duty of care rules

Published

on

The UK is moving ahead with a populist but controversial plan to regulate a wide range of illegal and/or harmful content almost anywhere online such stuff might pose a risk to children. The government has set out its final response to the consultation it kicked off back in April 2019 — committing to introduce an Online Safety Bill next year.

“Tech platforms will need to do far more to protect children from being exposed to harmful content or activity such as grooming, bullying and pornography. This will help make sure future generations enjoy the full benefits of the internet with better protections in place to reduce the risk of harm,” it said today.

In an earlier partial response to the consultation on its Online Harms white paper ministers confirmed the UK’s media regulator, Ofcom, as its pick for enforcing the forthcoming rules.

Under the plans announced today, the government said Ofcom will be able to levy fines of up to 10% of a company’s annual global turnover (or £18M, whichever is higher) on those that are deemed to have failed in their duty of care to protect impression eyeballs from being exposed to illegal material — such as child sexual abuse, terrorist material or suicide promoting content.

Ofcom will also have the power to block non-compliant services from being accessed in the UK — although it’s not clear how exactly that will be achieved (or whether the legislation will seek to prevent VPNs being used by Brits to access blocked Internet services).

The regulator’s running costs will be paid by companies that fall under the scope of the law, above a threshold based on global annual revenue, per the government, although it’s not yet clear where that pay-bar will kick in (nor how much tech giants and others will have to stump up for the cost of the oversight).

The online safety ‘duty of care’ rules are intended to cover not just social media giants like Facebook but a very wide range of Internet services — from dating apps and search engines to online marketplaces, video sharing platforms and instant messaging tools, as well as consumer cloud storage and even video games that allow relevant user interaction.

P2P services, online forums and pornography websites will also fall under the scope of the laws, as will quasi-private messaging services, according to a government press release.

That raises troubling questions about whether the legal requirements could put pressure on companies not to use end-to-end encryption (i.e. if they face being penalized for not being able to monitor robustly encrypted content for illegal material).

“The new regulations will apply to any company in the world hosting user-generated content online accessible by people in the UK or enabling them to privately or publicly interact with others online,” the government writes in a press release.

See also  European parliament’s NationBuilder contract under investigation by data regulator

The rules will include different categories of responsibility for content and activity — with a top tier (category 1) only applying to companies with “the largest online presences and high-risk features” which the government said is likely to include Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and Twitter.

“These companies will need to assess the risk of legal content or activity on their services with ‘a reasonably foreseeable risk of causing significant physical or psychological harm to adults’. They will then need to make clear what type of ‘legal but harmful’ content is acceptable on their platforms in their terms and conditions and enforce this transparently and consistently,” it said.

Category 1 companies will also have a legal requirement to publish transparency reports about the steps they are taking to tackle online harms, per the government’s PR.

While all companies that fall under the scope of the law will be required to have mechanisms so people can easily report harmful content or activity while also being able to appeal the takedown of content, it added.

The government believes that less than three per cent of UK businesses will fall within the scope of the legislation — adding that “the vast majority” will be Category 2 services.

Protections for free speech are also slated as being baked in — with the government saying the laws will not affect articles and comments sections on news websites, for example.

The legislation will contain provisions to impose criminal sanctions on senior managers (introduced by parliament via secondary legislation). On this the government added that it will not hesitate to use the power if companies fail to take the new rules seriously (such as by not responding “fully, accurately and in a timely manner” to information requests from Ofcom).

Commenting on the plans in a statement, digital secretary Oliver Dowden said: “I’m unashamedly pro tech but that can’t mean a tech free for all. Today Britain is setting the global standard for safety online with the most comprehensive approach yet to online regulation. We are entering a new age of accountability for tech to protect children and vulnerable users, to restore trust in this industry, and to enshrine in law safeguards for free speech.

“This proportionate new framework will ensure we don’t put unnecessary burdens on small businesses but give large digital businesses robust rules of the road to follow so we can seize the brilliance of modern technology to improve our lives.”

In another supporting statement, home secretary Priti Patel added: “Tech companies must put public safety first or face the consequences.”

Also commenting, Ofcom CEO, Dame Melanie Dawes, welcomed its new broader oversight remit, adding in a statement that: “Being online brings huge benefits, but four in five people have concerns about it. That shows the need for sensible, balanced rules that protect users from serious harm, but also recognise the great things about online, including free expression. We’re gearing up for the task by acquiring new technology and data skills, and we’ll work with Parliament as it finalises the plans.”

See also  29 Psychological Pricing Tricks for a Powerful Marketing Strategy [Infographic]

The government has said it will publish Interim Codes of Practice today to provide guidance for companies on tackling terrorist activity and online child sexual exploitation prior to the introduction of legislation — which is unlikely to make it into law before late 2021 at the earliest to allow adequate time for parliamentary debate and scrutiny.

And while a noisy political push to ‘protect kids’ online can expect to enjoy plenty of tabloid-level support, the wide-ranging application of the duty of care rules the government is envisaging — with large swathes of the UK’s tech sector set to be impacted — means ministers can expect to attract plenty of homegrown criticism too, from business groups, entrepreneurs and investors and legal and policy experts, including over specific concerns about knock-on impacts on privacy and security.

Its plan to push ahead with an Online Safety Bill that will impact scores of smaller digital businesses, instead of zeroing in on the handful of platform giants that are responsible for generating high volumes of harms, has already attracted criticism from the tech sector.

Coadec, a digital policy group that advocates for startups and the UK tech sector, branded the plan “a confusing minefield” for entrepreneurs — arguing it will do the opposite of fostering digital competition, counteracting other measures recently announced by the government in response to concerns about market concentration in the digital advertising sphere.

“Last week the Government announced a new unit within the CMA [Competition and Markets Authority] to promote greater competition within digital markets. Days later they have announced regulatory measures that risk having the opposite effect,” said Dom Hallas, Coadec’s executive director in a statement. “86% of UK investors say that regulation aiming to tackle big tech could lead to poor outcomes that damage tech startups and limit competition — these plans risk being a confusing minefield that will have a disproportionate impact on competitors and benefit big companies with the resources to comply.”

“British startups want a safer internet. But it’s not clear how these proposals, which still cover a huge range of services that are nowhere near social media from ecommerce to the sharing economy, are better targeted than the last time government published proposals nearly a year and a half ago,” he added. “Until the Government starts to work collaboratively instead of consistently threatening startup founders with jail time it’s not clear how we’re going to deliver proposals that work.”

See also  Adobe brings over 20,000 design assets to Spark

One gap in the government’s proposal is financial harms — with issues such as fraud and the sale of unsafe goods explicitly excluded from the framework (as it says it wants the regulations to be “clear and manageable” for businesses and to avoid the risk of duplicating existing rules).

Some “lower-risk” services may also be exempt from the duty of care requirement, per the government, to avoid the law being overly. burdensome.

Email services will also not be in scope, it confirmed.

And while it says some types of advertising will be in scope (such as influencer ads posted on social media) ads placed on an in-scope service via a direct contract between an advertiser and an advertising service (such as Facebook or Google Ads) will be exempt because “this is covered by existing regulation” — which looks set to let the adtech duopoly off the harmful ads hook without good clear reason.

After all, existing UK regulations do not seem to have done much to stem the tide of crypto scam ads running on Facebook (or served via Google’s ad tools) in recent years — which led to a campaign by a consumer advice personality to get Facebook and other companies to clean up their act, for example.

Consumer group Which? has criticized the lack of government attention to financial scams in the Online Safety Bill. In a response statement, Rocio Concha, its director of policy and advocacy, said: “It’s positive that the government is recognising the responsibility of online platforms to protect users, but it would be a big missed opportunity if online scams were not dealt with through the upcoming bill. Our research has shown the financial and emotional toll of scams and that social media firms such as Facebook and search engines like Google need to do much more to protect users.

“We look forward to the detail and hope to see a clear plan to give online platforms greater responsibility for fraudulent content on their sites, including having in place better controls to prevent fake adverts from appearing, so that all users can be confident that they will truly be safe online.”

European Union lawmakers are due to unveil their own pan-EU policy package to regulate illegal and harmful content later today — but the Digital Services Act will tackle the sale of illegal goods online as well as proposing to harmonize rules for reporting troublesome content on online services.

TechCrunch

NEWS

Google December Product Reviews Update Affects More Than English Language Sites? via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Published

on

Google’s Product Reviews update was announced to be rolling out to the English language. No mention was made as to if or when it would roll out to other languages. Mueller answered a question as to whether it is rolling out to other languages.

Google December 2021 Product Reviews Update

On December 1, 2021, Google announced on Twitter that a Product Review update would be rolling out that would focus on English language web pages.

The focus of the update was for improving the quality of reviews shown in Google search, specifically targeting review sites.

A Googler tweeted a description of the kinds of sites that would be targeted for demotion in the search rankings:

“Mainly relevant to sites that post articles reviewing products.

Think of sites like “best TVs under $200″.com.

Goal is to improve the quality and usefulness of reviews we show users.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

Google also published a blog post with more guidance on the product review update that introduced two new best practices that Google’s algorithm would be looking for.

The first best practice was a requirement of evidence that a product was actually handled and reviewed.

The second best practice was to provide links to more than one place that a user could purchase the product.

The Twitter announcement stated that it was rolling out to English language websites. The blog post did not mention what languages it was rolling out to nor did the blog post specify that the product review update was limited to the English language.

See also  Elizabeth Warren bites back at Zuckerberg’s leaked threat to K.O. the government

Google’s Mueller Thinking About Product Reviews Update

Screenshot of Google's John Mueller trying to recall if December Product Review Update affects more than the English language

Screenshot of Google's John Mueller trying to recall if December Product Review Update affects more than the English language

Product Review Update Targets More Languages?

The person asking the question was rightly under the impression that the product review update only affected English language search results.

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

But he asserted that he was seeing search volatility in the German language that appears to be related to Google’s December 2021 Product Review Update.

This is his question:

“I was seeing some movements in German search as well.

So I was wondering if there could also be an effect on websites in other languages by this product reviews update… because we had lots of movement and volatility in the last weeks.

…My question is, is it possible that the product reviews update affects other sites as well?”

John Mueller answered:

“I don’t know… like other languages?

My assumption was this was global and and across all languages.

But I don’t know what we announced in the blog post specifically.

But usually we try to push the engineering team to make a decision on that so that we can document it properly in the blog post.

I don’t know if that happened with the product reviews update. I don’t recall the complete blog post.

But it’s… from my point of view it seems like something that we could be doing in multiple languages and wouldn’t be tied to English.

And even if it were English initially, it feels like something that is relevant across the board, and we should try to find ways to roll that out to other languages over time as well.

So I’m not particularly surprised that you see changes in Germany.

But I also don’t know what we actually announced with regards to the locations and languages that are involved.”

Does Product Reviews Update Affect More Languages?

While the tweeted announcement specified that the product reviews update was limited to the English language the official blog post did not mention any such limitations.

See also  29 Psychological Pricing Tricks for a Powerful Marketing Strategy [Infographic]

Google’s John Mueller offered his opinion that the product reviews update is something that Google could do in multiple languages.

One must wonder if the tweet was meant to communicate that the update was rolling out first in English and subsequently to other languages.

It’s unclear if the product reviews update was rolled out globally to more languages. Hopefully Google will clarify this soon.

Citations

Google Blog Post About Product Reviews Update

Product reviews update and your site

Google’s New Product Reviews Guidelines

Write high quality product reviews

John Mueller Discusses If Product Reviews Update Is Global

Watch Mueller answer the question at the 14:00 Minute Mark

[embedded content]

Searchenginejournal.com

Continue Reading

NEWS

Survey says: Amazon, Google more trusted with your personal data than Apple is

Published

on

survey-says:-amazon,-google-more-trusted-with-your-personal-data-than-apple-is-–-phonearena
 

MacRumors reveals that more people feel better with their personal data in the hands of Amazon and Google than Apple’s. Companies that the public really doesn’t trust when it comes to their personal data include Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram.

The survey asked over 1,000 internet users in the U.S. how much they trusted certain companies such as Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon to handle their user data and browsing activity responsibly.

Amazon and Google are considered by survey respondents to be more trustworthy than Apple

Those surveyed were asked whether they trusted these firms with their personal data “a great deal,” “a good amount,” “not much,” or “not at all.” Respondents could also answer that they had no opinion about a particular company. 18% of those polled said that they trust Apple “a great deal” which topped the 14% received by Google and Amazon.

However, 39% said that they trust Amazon  by “a good amount” with Google picking up 34% of the votes in that same category. Only 26% of those answering said that they trust Apple by “a good amount.” The first two responses, “a great deal” and “a good amount,” are considered positive replies for a company. “Not much” and “not at all” are considered negative responses.

By adding up the scores in the positive categories,

Apple tallied a score of 44% (18% said it trusted Apple with its personal data “a great deal” while 26% said it trusted Apple “a good amount”). But that placed the tech giant third after Amazon’s 53% and Google’s 48%. After Apple, Microsoft finished fourth with 43%, YouTube (which is owned by Google) was fifth with 35%, and Facebook was sixth at 20%.

See also  29 Psychological Pricing Tricks for a Powerful Marketing Strategy [Infographic]

Rounding out the remainder of the nine firms in the survey, Instagram placed seventh with a positive score of 19%, WhatsApp was eighth with a score of 15%, and TikTok was last at 12%.

Looking at the scoring for the two negative responses (“not much,” or “not at all”), Facebook had a combined negative score of 72% making it the least trusted company in the survey. TikTok was next at 63% with Instagram following at 60%. WhatsApp and YouTube were both in the middle of the pact at 53% followed next by Google and Microsoft at 47% and 42% respectively. Apple and Amazon each had the lowest combined negative scores at 40% each.

74% of those surveyed called targeted online ads invasive

The survey also found that a whopping 82% of respondents found targeted online ads annoying and 74% called them invasive. Just 27% found such ads helpful. This response doesn’t exactly track the 62% of iOS users who have used Apple’s App Tracking Transparency feature to opt-out of being tracked while browsing websites and using apps. The tracking allows third-party firms to send users targeted ads online which is something that they cannot do to users who have opted out.

The 38% of iOS users who decided not to opt out of being tracked might have done so because they find it convenient to receive targeted ads about a certain product that they looked up online. But is ATT actually doing anything?

Marketing strategy consultant Eric Seufert said last summer, “Anyone opting out of tracking right now is basically having the same level of data collected as they were before. Apple hasn’t actually deterred the behavior that they have called out as being so reprehensible, so they are kind of complicit in it happening.”

See also  European parliament’s NationBuilder contract under investigation by data regulator

The Financial Times says that iPhone users are being lumped together by certain behaviors instead of unique ID numbers in order to send targeted ads. Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg says that the company is working to rebuild its ad infrastructure “using more aggregate or anonymized data.”

Aggregated data is a collection of individual data that is used to create high-level data. Anonymized data is data that removes any information that can be used to identify the people in a group.

When consumers were asked how often do they think that their phones or other tech devices are listening in to them in ways that they didn’t agree to, 72% answered “very often” or “somewhat often.” 28% responded by saying “rarely” or “never.”

Continue Reading

NEWS

Google’s John Mueller on Brand Mentions via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Published

on

Google’s John Mueller was asked if “brand mentions” helped with SEO and rankings. John Mueller explained, in detail, how brand mentions are not anything used at Google.

What’s A Brand Mention?

A brand mention is when one website mentions another website. There is an idea in the SEO community that when a website mentions another website’s domain name or URL that Google will see this and count it the same as a link.

Brand Mentions are also known as an implied link. Much was written about this ten years ago after a Google patent that mentions “implied links” surfaced.

There has never been a solid review of why the idea of “brand mentions” has nothing to do with this patent, but I’ll provide a shortened version later in this article.

John Mueller Discussing Brand Mentions

John Mueller Brand Mentions

John Mueller Brand Mentions

Do Brand Mentions Help With Rankings?

The person asking the question wanted to know about brand mentions for the purpose of ranking. The person asking the question has good reason to ask it because the idea of “brand mentions” has never been definitively reviewed.

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

The person asked the question:

“Do brand mentions without a link help with SEO rankings?”

Google Does Not Use Brand Mentions

Google’s John Mueller answered that Google does not use the “brand mentions” for any link related purpose.

Mueller explained:

“From my point of view, I don’t think we use those at all for things like PageRank or understanding the link graph of a website.

And just a plain mention is sometimes kind of tricky to figure out anyway.”

That part about it being tricky is interesting.

He didn’t elaborate on why it’s tricky until later in the video where he says it’s hard to understand the subjective context of a website mentioning another website.

Brand Mentions Are Useful For Building Awareness

Mueller next says that brand mentions may be useful for helping to get the word out about a site, which is about building popularity.

Mueller continued:

“But it can be something that makes people aware of your brand, and from that point of view, could be something where indirectly you might have some kind of an effect from that in that they search for your brand and then …obviously, if they’re searching for your brand then hopefully they find you right away and then they can go to your website.

And if they like what they see there, then again, they can go off and recommend that to other people as well.”

Advertisement

See also  Google Updates Event Structured Data Requirements

Continue Reading Below

“Brand Mentions” Are Problematic

Later on at the 58 minute mark another person brings the topic back up and asks how Google could handle spam sites that are mentioning a brand in a negative way.

The person said that one can disavow links but one cannot disavow a “brand mention.”

Mueller agreed and said that’s one of things that makes brand mentions difficult to use for ranking purposes.

John Mueller explained:

“Kind of understanding the almost the subjective context of the mention is really hard.

Is it like a positive mention or a negative mention?

Is it a sarcastic positive mention or a sarcastic negative mention? How can you even tell?

And all of that, together with the fact that there are lots of spammy sites out there and sometimes they just spin content, sometimes they’re malicious with regards to the content that they create…

All of that, I think, makes it really hard to say we can just use that as the same as a link.

…It’s just, I think, too confusing to use as a clear signal.”

Where “Brand Mentions” Come From

The idea of “brand mentions” has bounced around for over ten years.

There were no research papers or patents to support it. “Brand mentions” is literally an idea that someone invented out of thin air.

However the “brand mention” idea took off in 2012 when a patent surfaced that seemed to confirm the idea of brand mentions.

There’s a whole long story to this so I’m just going to condense it.

There’s a patent from 2012 that was misinterpreted in several different ways because most people at the time, myself included, did not read the entire patent from beginning to end.

See also  Twitter Adds New Push Notifications for Suspicious Login Attempts

The patent itself is about ranking web pages.

The structure of most Google patents consist of introductory paragraphs that discuss what the patent is about and those paragraphs are followed by pages of in-depth description of the details.

The introductory paragraphs that explain what it’s about states:

“Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs… for ranking search results.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

Pretty much nobody read that beginning part of the patent.

Everyone focused on a single paragraph in the middle of the patent (page 9 out of 16 pages).

In that paragraph there is a mention of something called “implied links.”

The word “implied” is only mentioned four times in the entire patent and all four times are contained within that single paragraph.

So when this patent was discovered, the SEO industry focused on that single paragraph as proof that Google uses brand mentions.

In order to understand what an “implied link” is, you have to scroll all the way back up to the opening paragraphs where the Google patent authors describe something called a “reference query” that is not a link but is nevertheless used for ranking purposes just like a link.

What Is A Reference Query?

A reference query is a search query that contains a reference to a URL or a domain name.

The patent states:

“A reference query for a particular group of resources can be a previously submitted search query that has been categorized as referring to a resource in the particular group of resources.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

Elsewhere the patent provides a more specific explanation:

“A query can be classified as referring to a particular resource if the query includes a term that is recognized by the system as referring to the particular resource.

…search queries including the term “example.com” can be classified as referring to that home page.”

The summary of the patent, which comes at the beginning of the document, states that it’s about establishing which links to a website are independent and also counting reference queries and with that information creating a “modification factor” which is used to rank web pages.

“…determining, for each of the plurality of groups of resources, a respective count of reference queries; determining, for each of the plurality of groups of resources, a respective group-specific modification factor, wherein the group-specific modification factor for each group is based on the count of independent links and the count of reference queries for the group;”

The entire patent largely rests on those two very important factors, a count of independent inbound links and the count of reference queries. The phrases reference query and reference queries are used 39 times in the patent.

See also  Google Ads Salesperson Alleged to Link Organic Ranking to Ad Spend

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

As noted above, the reference query is used for ranking purposes like a link, but it’s not a link.

The patent states:

“An implied link is a reference to a target resource…”

It’s clear that in this patent, when it mentions the implied link, it’s talking about reference queries, which as explained above simply means when people search using keywords and the domain name of a website.

Idea of Brand Mentions Is False

The whole idea of “brand mentions” became a part of SEO belief systems because of how that patent was misinterpreted.

But now you have the facts and know why “brand mentions” is not real thing.

Plus John Mueller confirmed it.

“Brand mentions” is something completely random that someone in the SEO community invented out of thin air.

Citations

Ranking Search Results Patent

Watch John Mueller discuss “brand mentions” at 44:10 Minute Mark and the brand Mentions second part begins at the 58:12 minute mark

[embedded content]

Searchenginejournal.com

Continue Reading

DON'T MISS ANY IMPORTANT NEWS!
Subscribe To our Newsletter
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

Trending