Memorandum submitted by Ofcom
FOREWORD
1. The past decade has seen significant
changes in the communications and broadcasting landscape. Children
and young people are at the forefront of these changes: as our
research shows, they are some of the heaviest users of new media,
from text messaging to MP3 players, games consoles and the Internet.
The Internet in particular offers rich opportunities for them
to learn, to get help with their education and to enrich their
communications with family and friends, amongst others. But the
Internet also presents challenges, particularly to their safety
and wellbeing, arising from exposure to potentially harmful or
inappropriate material.
2. So we welcome the CMS Select Committee's
inquiry, and the review commissioned from Tanya Byron, and the
opportunity these will afford for a timely and balanced discussion
of the issues. We believe this scrutiny will inform and stimulate
an evidence-based debate with industry, government and consumers
about the possible range of activities to help address these real
concerns.
3. In particular, we welcome the opportunity
to begin the discussion about how best to secure consumer protections
in the online age. At a time of sweeping change in content delivery,
and in the type of content that is available, the overall goals
of content regulation persist. These are to ensure that people
have the information and skills they need to take responsibility
for their media choices. In linear broadcasting, the schedule
and the watershed are powerful and well-understood tools for signalling
the characteristics of content to audiences. Our aim must now
be to help inform consumers for the online world.
4. Although the goals are the same, the
broadcast model of content regulation is not appropriate for potentially
harmful online content. Rather, a new approach to content regulation
is required: one which is built on a model of shared responsibility,
which gives people the tools they need to take personal responsibility
and which supports effective industry self-regulation. The growing
importance of online media literacy derives from this: media-literate
parents and children, equipped to take on this personal responsibility,
provide a significant means of protection.
5. Ofcom's research, analysis and experience
lead us to believe at this stage, that this approach is the likeliest
to be successful, and to build confidence for children, young
people, their parents, and wider society.
6. We look forward to the outcomes of the
inquiry, and to working with all sectors of industry and consumer
groups to achieve these goals.
1. INTRODUCTION
7. Ofcom is pleased to submit its response
to the call for evidence issued by the CMS Select Committee Inquiry
into Harmful Content on the Internet and in video games. We welcome
the opportunity to have a balanced, evidence-led discussion about:
— the benefits and opportunities offered
to consumers, including children and young people, and the economy
by technologies such as the Internet, video games and mobile phones;
— the potential risks to consumers,
including children and young people, from exposure to harmful
content on the Internet or in video games; and the specific risks
raised by:
— user-generated content, including
content that glorifies guns and gang violence;
— the availability of personal information
on social networking sites, and
— content that incites racial hatred,
extremism or terrorism; or that exhibits extreme pornography or
violence.
— the tools available to consumers
and industry to protect people from potentially harmful content
on the Internet and in video games, and
— the effectiveness of the existing
regulatory regime in helping to manage the potential risks from
harmful content on the Internet and in video games.
8. Our evidence focuses primarily on Internet
risks including both home PC/laptop Internet, and mobile phone
Internet use, although where appropriate, we also make reference
to consumers' online gaming experience.
9. Section 3 of the Communications Act 2003
("the Act") sets out Ofcom's principal duties in carrying
out its functions are to further the interests of citizens in
relation to communication matters and to further the interests
of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting
competition. While Ofcom's statutory duties as a content regulator
are exclusively directed to TV and Radio broadcasting we also
have legal responsibilities in respect of Internet connectivity.
We also have a statutory duty to promote media literacy (Section
11 of the Act)—a role in encouraging consumers to make the
most of services on the Internet, and to learn how to manage the
risks to which they are exposed when online. We therefore have
an interest in the protection of consumers from harm when they
use the Internet.
10. In preparing our submission we considered
the following areas, each of which is provided as an annex to
this document:
— How does the Internet work? (Annex
1)
Provides an overview of the Internet value
chain, the different types of content and services available on
the Internet, the economics of the Internet and the key players.
— Current tools and approaches to regulating
the Internet (Annex 2)
Outlines the current regulatory thinking,
the legal and regulatory structures in the UK, and the initiatives
that are already under way at different points in the online content
value chain.
— TV content regulation and child protection:
policy, practice and user tools (Annex 3)
Summarises the current legal and regulatory
structures for TV and points to the lessons that can be learned
from TV content regulation; provides an overview of the Audio
Visual Media Services Directive (AVMS).
— Online child protection—the
international perspective (Annex 4)
Reviews approaches adopted in five other countries:
France, Germany, Australia, the US and South Korea. We also take
a brief look at the approaches taken in China and Saudi Arabia.
— The research evidence base: the views
of children, young people and parents (Annex 5a) and the views
of adults (Annex 5b).
In Annex 5a we summarise the findings from
the "Children, Young People and Online Content" research
that was commissioned to support our submission to the Byron review
by providing Ofcom with up-to-date feedback on this topic from
parents, children and young people. [1]In
Annex 5b we summarise key relevant findings from other Ofcom research[2]
and other publicly available research as appropriate.
— Harm and offence in media content:
updating the 2006 review (Annex 6)
In support of our submission to the Byron
Review, Ofcom commissioned Sonia Livingstone and Andrea Millwood
Hargrave to update the literature review on Harm and Offence in
Media Content, first published in 2006. The updated literature
review focuses on children and the effects of the following media
on them: TV, games, the Internet and mobiles.
11. We have structured our evidence as follows:
Chapter 2 is an executive summary of Chapters
3-6.
Chapter 3 looks at the benefits and opportunities
that the Internet offers for adults, children, young people, their
families, society and the economy.
Chapter 4 primarily addresses the views of parents,
children and young people about children's and young people's
use of the Internet and the potential or actual risks to children's
safety and wellbeing in going online. We also address adults'
general use of the Internet and the concerns that they have about
online content.
Chapter 5 summarises the conclusions of a review
of the literature on the risks of harm to children from exposure
to inappropriate content. We also briefly summarise the findings
from a review of the literature on the risks of harm to adults.
Finally, Chapter 6 looks at what is being done
today to help people manage the potential or actual risks of going
online, where there are issues, and considers what could be changed
in order to help adults, children, young people and parents manage
the potential or actual risks of going online, as well as the
pros and cons of different approaches. It is in this context that
we share with the Select Committee our recommendations for the
Byron Review team's further consideration.
12. This body of current evidence and analysis
has informed the recommendations we have made; however, the fast
pace of development in the online environment means that we must
remain open to new evidence and to alternative ways to address
the potential risks we have identified.
2. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
13. Our evidence to the Committee covers
the potential risks of harm to all consumers, including children
and young people, their parents, and adults generally. However,
our evidence is focused principally on the potential risks to
children and young people, for whom the risks are greatest.
The Internet is much used and valued by children
and their parents as well as by adults more generally
14. Overall, 99% of children aged 8-17 say
that they use the Internet, and 80% of households with children
aged 5-17 have Internet access at home (compared to 57% of households
without children).[3]
15. While TV remains the dominant medium
for children aged 5-15, the use and importance of the Internet
to the child increases with age, both in terms of hours of use
and in its status as the medium the child would miss the most.
16. Average hours of use of the Internet
by children have increased greatly over the past two years (from
7.1 hours/week in 2005 to 13.8 hours/week in 2007 for 12-15-year-olds).
17. The uses made of the Internet by children
vary considerably by age: younger children tend to use it more
to play games, older children as an educational tool as well as
for searching, email, watching or downloading video clips, and
using social networking sites.
18. Younger adults tend to use the Internet
more and for a broader set of activities than older adults; the
most popular online activities overall are using email, surfing
in general and purchasing things. Younger adults also tend to
value the Internet more than older adults. As with children, average
hours of use of the Internet have also increased over the past
two years (from 6.5 hours/week to 8.2 hours/week, especially amongst
younger adults).
A mixed picture emerges regarding the degree and
effectiveness of parental oversight of Internet use at home
19. For a start, one of the challenges faced
by parents is that almost half (47%), believe their child is more
skilled at using the Internet than they are. This is especially
true of the parents of older children (61% of parents of 12-17-year-olds).
20. There are also differences in what parents
and young people say about the presence of "Internet rules"
at home: the research indicates that parents tend to claim greater
presence and use of these rules compared to children, especially
in the case of children under 15.
21. Just over half of parents said that
they had content filtering software installed; a further 9% said
that they had not heard of filtering (until now) but would be
interested in using it in the future. Around one in five was familiar
with content filtering software, but did not use it; the reason
most frequently given being that they trusted their children.
This suggests that parents think that this type of software is
used to prevent children from accessing certain types of content,
rather than as a tool which could be used to help provide protection
from such material. Other reasons mentioned were that their children
were too young to surf the web/use the Internet, or because they
did not think they needed it.
22. While parents generally seem to have
a good understanding of the uses their child makes of the Internet
at home, there are some notable exceptions: they seem to be underestimating,
in particular: game playing, watching video clips, using social
networking sites and contributing comments to someone else's web
page. This is borne out, for example, by the finding that around
one in five parents do not know if their child has a social networking
site profile.
23. One possible reason for this is unsupervised
use; overall, 16% of children have a computer with Internet access
in their bedroom (this rises from 1% of 5-7-year-olds, to 12%
of 8-11-year-olds and 24% of 12-17-year-olds); parents also tend
to underestimate their child's access to the Internet at a friend's
house.
24. Finally, while the majority of parents
believe that they have done what needs to be done to help their
child stay safe when online, there is a sizeable group of parents
(over one in four) who say that they do not have any rules in
place.
25. This points to, on the one hand, a group
of parents who may not be doing enough to ensure that their children
are safe online, and, on the other hand, to another group who
have rules in place, but where there are potential shortfalls
in the effectiveness of these rules.
26. While almost one in seven 8-17-year-olds
say they have come across potentially harmful or inappropriate
material in the past six months, almost one in 10 parents[4]
do not know if their children have or not. The likelihood of coming
across such material increases with the age of the child, as does
the likelihood of the parent not knowing if the child has done
so.
27. While the majority of children and parents
agree that the child would tell the parent if they came across
something that worried them, this does not always seem to be the
case: overall, 16% of 8-17-year-olds say they have come across
harmful or inappropriate material[5]
in the past six months, while 12% of parents with children in
this age group say that their child has; almost one in ten parents
(8%) do not know if their child has come across harmful or inappropriate
content in the past six months.
28. Responses from parents and children
indicate that most of this material was seen at home, but children
also say that they have seen it at school or at friends'/relatives'
houses. Parents seem to be less aware of out-of-home exposure
to potentially harmful or inappropriate content. This clearly
has implications for the impact of their rules on the child's
levels of potential exposure and risk.
29. Sexual content is by far the most frequently
mentioned type of potentially harmful or inappropriate content,
followed by violence and pop-up adverts with harmful or inappropriate
content.
30. Most children say that they leave the
site when they come across such material, with only a small percentage
saying that they tell a parent (possibly because they are not
sufficiently concerned or worried about it).
31. The majority of parents (57%) do not
know where to go to get information about how to help protect
their children online.
32. Between 5% and 8% mentioned other websites,
schools, family/friends/colleagues, or the library; 3% or less
mentioned Get Safe Online, ThinkYouKnow, the Internet Watch Foundation,
the Citizens' Advice Bureau or CEOP (Child Exploitation and Online
Protection).
33. A substantial minority of parents—almost
four in ten—would not know who to complain to if they came
across something potentially harmful or inappropriate.
34. Around a third would complain to the
police, 14% to their ISP and 11% to the websites themselves. Most
children say they would complain to their parents (though whether
they would or not is questionable, given the findings reported
above).
35. Although parents and children do have
concerns about the Internet, for both, the benefits outweigh the
risks.
36. In research conducted for this submission,
the vast majority of parents agreed that online children discover
interesting, useful things that they did not know before, and
both parents and children overwhelmingly agreed that the Internet
helps children with school/college work.
37. Almost two-thirds of the parents and
children interviewed in this research agreed that children who
do not have/use the Internet are at a disadvantage.
38. The majority of parents agreed that
they trusted their child to use the Internet safely, that it was
safe for them to go online, and in general the children interviewed
were more confident of their ability to manage online risk than
their parents were.
39. While the majority of parents clearly
have concerns about the Internet (66% of all parents have concerns),
the reverse is true of children (30% of 8-17-year-olds have concerns).
Just over three in five adults (63%) have concerns about what
is on the Internet. However, around half of the younger adults
(aged under 24) do not have any concerns.
40. Parents are particularly concerned about
sexual content, violent content and paedophiles/perverts masquerading
as young people, their children about sexual and violent content.
These are also some of the top concerns for adults more generally,
along with identity fraud and other online security issues.
41. While parents overwhelmingly believe
that Internet users must be protected from seeing inappropriate
or offensive content, slightly more than half agree that Internet
sites must be free to be expressive and creative. Similarly, adults
also clearly agree (78%) that users should be protected from inappropriate
or offensive content, but at the same time just over half agree
that Internet sites must be free to be expressive and creative.
42. Finally, a majority of parents think
that the benefits of the Internet outweigh the risks, and that
real-life concerns like bullying and violence are more worrying.
Children in particular agree with the latter statement.
43. The majority of adults say they have
concerns about sharing several types of personal information online,
and most say they would make a personal judgement about a website
before entering any personal details (one in ten say that they
would not make a judgement, especially those aged 16-24 (17%)).
44. However, this sense of caution does
not necessarily appear to translate to the type of information
shared on social networking sites, perhaps driven by the younger
age profile of such users: although people of all ages have a
social networking profile (22%), the majority are aged 16-24 (54%).
45. Qualitative research suggests that privacy
and safety issues are not "top of mind" for users of
social networking sites. Social networking is associated with
the users' homes and leisure time, and a sense of ease and fun.
Users gave several reasons for not actively taking steps to reduce
any potential risk regarding the information they were sharing
about themselves: lack of awareness, the assumption that the social
networking provider had taken care of the issues, ICT confidence,
information on privacy settings being difficult to find, other
sites perceived to pose a greater risk, the "invincibility
of youth", and the desire for attention outweighing safety
concerns.
46. Does exposure to potentially harmful
or inappropriate material lead to actual harm?
47. A review of the literature—summarised
in Chapter 5—identifies evidence suggesting some risk of
harm. While ethical reasons make the examination of online risk
of harm to children problematic if not impossible, some researchers
have examined the risk of harm to adults from online content and
services. There remains rather little evidence that direct exposure
to online pornography is harmful for adults, though some clinicians,
and a few surveys, report an association between use of online
pornography and clinical problems regarding sexual or emotional
experiences offline. It is difficult to determine whether the
pornographic content referred to in such studies is consensual
or violent in nature. Secondly, surveys (typically, of American
undergraduates) point to a growing problem of stalking online,
of varying degrees of severity, this perhaps being associated
with offline stalking. Third, when shown race hate websites, adult
audiences consider these "outside community standards"
but there is no evidence that their views are directly altered
by these; little or no research has examined the responses of
those who are the target of such sites. In conclusion, research
suggests that the diverse and sometimes extreme nature of online
content, and the enhanced opportunities for online contact, is
resulting in a risk of harm for some adult users of the Internet.
As for children, however, it is too early to draw strong conclusions
regarding the nature, extent or duration of any actual harm associated
with Internet use. Therefore, research can only guide policy by
supporting a judgement based on the balance of probabilities rather
than on irrefutable proof.
48. The research findings reported above,
and the overall conclusions from the literature review, suggest
a lack of evidence for actual harm but evidence for the risk of
harm. We can conclude from this that there is a case for considering
whether the existing regulatory environment is adequate and whether
more could be done to help adults and children manage the potential
or actual risks online.
49. For the Internet, there is no single
institution which can do what the broadcast TV channel does (ie
assume responsibility for content standards). Instead, we believe
that responsibility for the potential risks is shared, or distributed,
across the system: players across the Internet value chain all
have a role to play in mitigating the risk of harm.
50. In this document we will outline our
thoughts on proportionate ways in which the potential risks might
be mitigated. In developing these recommendations we considered
the extent to which action was needed at all (the "do nothing"
option); and the extent to which direct statutory intervention
might be the appropriate way of addressing parental concerns and
the potential for harm, supported by our research. We conclude
that current legal constraints and the problems of jurisdictional
reach make statutory regulation impractical and, even if it were
adopted as an approach, it may be of limited effectiveness. This
is, in large part, because the Internet is an open, global platform,
and statutory regulation can only have national reach—unless
the regulation also involves curtailing this openness and global
reach, which distinguish the Internet from traditional platforms
and in many respects are the basis of its impact and value.
51. Instead, a new approach to content regulation
is needed, one which is built on a model of responsibility distributed
across the value chain, relying much more on personal responsibility
and on industry self-regulation than on traditional, formal intervention.
52. The analysis in Chapter 6 suggests that
there is a great deal of industry activity already under way to
help adults, parents and children manage the potential risks from
harmful content online: individual industry players and collective
self-regulatory initiatives are making a material difference.
This is particularly clear in relation to the management of access
to illegal content on the Internet, for which the UK has a self-regulatory
framework in place which is ahead of those in many other regions
of the world. However, on the industry side, and in relation to
the development of consumer competences and awareness, Ofcom believes
there are some areas where further improvement is possible. Ofcom's
evidence to the Byron Review included an analysis of the current
position and identified some areas where further action might
be considered. While the Terms of Reference of the Select Committee
Inquiry do not ask for this, our evidence includes the recommendations
that we made to the Byron Review.
53. In order to help people take more personal
responsibility when they go online, we need to help them become
more media literate. Media literacy is the ability to access,
understand and create communications in a variety of contexts.
Some call this "literacy for the 21st century". Put
another way, if literacy is not only about reading and writing,
but also about comprehension and critical thinking, then media
literacy is about engaging these capabilities when using and consuming
media. Without media literacy, people's ability to participate
effectively in society, the marketplace and in the workforce may
be greatly diminished. The remit of the Committee's Inquiry focuses
principally on issues related to access—how to find the
content and services wanted and how to avoid the content which
may be potentially harmful or offensive—and indeed this
is the focus of our response. However, Ofcom also recognises the
importance of "understanding" and "creating"
in the broader media literacy landscape, and these latter aspects
are a part of our overall media literacy work programme.
54. We believe that both of these elements—greater
media literacy on the part of parents, young people and children,
coupled with targeted industry support—are critical and
necessary in order to deliver a safer online environment for children.
We look at each element in turn below.
Personal responsibility—media literacy:
parents, children and young people
55. The evidence clearly points to a need
to help adults generally, as well as parents and their children,
better manage the potential or actual risks of going online by
improving their media literacy skills. In our submission to the
Byron Review we suggested a focus on particular media literacy
outcomes to help parents and their children manage the potential
or actual risks of going online. Here we expand on this to include
adults more generally.
Outcomes
56. For parents and their children:
Increased awareness and understanding among
parents of their critical role in ensuring the safety of their
children when they are online, through the effective application
of carefully targeted and age-appropriate rules. For example,
this should include:
— Increased awareness among parents
of where to go to get information on protecting their child online
as well as tips to ensure that the child has understood and accepted
the importance of any rules that the parent puts in place (eg
an Internet "green cross code"):
— Increased parental understanding
of how they can apply their real-world parenting skills to the
online world (ie it's not necessarily just about technical literacy);
— increased parental awareness of what
children are doing online more generally and the key areas/things
that they need to look out for;
— increased awareness of the age-appropriateness
of certain activities online, eg using a social networking site
(SNS);
— increased parental and children's
awareness of the risks of children's access to content and other
online activity (e.g. privacy in relation to the personal information
that children share about themselves online) as well as child
contact, and
— increased awareness of where to find
high-quality content online, for younger children in particular.
— Increased take-up of content management
tools such as filtering software, by making parents aware of its
existence, its benefits and its limitations:
— increased use of other forms of filtering,
such as those provided by search engines, and
— increased awareness and understanding
of the tools provided by parents' Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
and awareness of those ISPs which are more "family-friendly";
for example, as demonstrated by the presence of a family-friendly
"trustmark".[6]
57. For adults in general, as well as parents
and their children:
— Increased awareness and understanding
of their online responsibilities and of the implications of their
behaviour while online. For example:
— an understanding of the potential
effects of sharing different types of personal data, and
— awareness and ability to manage and
control their personal data appropriately.
58. For adults in general:
— Increased awareness and understanding
of the meanings of the content labels used by industry, as well
as the implications of these in relation to children's use of
content.
— Increased awareness of where to complain
about potentially harmful or inappropriate content online—eg
the IWF for illegal material, the site host for inappropriate
material, their filtering product provider where they identify
over- or under-blocking.
— Increased awareness of the role consumers
can play, both in labelling the content they put online and in
"community policing".
— Alignment of the advice and information
that is being given to adults, parents and other carers, teachers
and children:
— integrated awareness-raising and
educational initiatives, appropriately targeted at distinct audiences
with different needs, at a local and national level, for maximum
effect, and
— linked to this, the broader inclusion
of e-safety, along with the other critical components of media
literacy, across the national curriculum from a younger age.
Delivering these outcomes
59. A very broad range of good initiatives
are currently under way in this area—from those associated
with formal government agencies such as Becta or the Child Exploitation
and Online Protection centre (CEOP), to those offered by charitable
organisations, industry bodies and individual industry players,
including organisations such as Childnet International, Media
Smart, the BFI, the Media Literacy Task Force, the BBC and Channel
4.[7]
However, to deliver the outcomes offered for consideration above,
we proposed to the Byron Review, and propose here, that thought
is also given to the following:
— The development of a framing strategy
for the delivery of the above outcomes across the various government
departments, industry bodies and individual industry players,
charitable organisations, and regulators, with a single point
of oversight and coordination:
— develop short-, medium- and long-term
targets and identify the communications plan, educational initiatives
and funding necessary to deliver these on a sustainable basis;
— consider the appropriate balance
between a high-level public information/awareness campaign and
on-the-ground activities, and
— prioritise the more vulnerable children.
— Creation of communications and materials
that are target-group specific, ie tailored to the different types
of users (eg parents, children, teachers), so that they are appropriate
to the level of the recipients' skills and understanding.
60. In this context, we would direct the
Committee's attention to the significant Government attention
paid to the specific risks of cyberbullying, and the development
of integrated campaigns with targeted information and resources
for children, parents and teachers. This work is discussed in
Chapter 6.
— The development and promotion of
an easy-to-use and interactive online "one-stop-shop"
for information on how to protect children online, to help parents,
children and teachers.
61. We outlined our thoughts on the desired
ends and described some of the possible means, but left the question
for the Byron Review team to consider about what is the institutional
mix to make this happen (ie what is the role for Government, Ofcom,
the BBC, schools, CEOP, industry etc.), as well as the appropriate
funding model.
Figure 1
THE ROLE OF CONSUMERS AND INDUSTRY SELF-REGULATION
62. Ofcom believes that a new focus on media
literacy outcomes will be of crucial importance in mitigating
the potential risks from harmful content. Alongside media literacy,
there is a range of means through which industry players can help
UK Internet users protect themselves from the risks from harmful
content. There are two broad types of intervention: actions intended
to affect the extent to which content is made available on the
Internet—seeking to affect the supply of risky material—and
those intended to affect the extent to which the content is accessible
to (vulnerable) audiences.
63. In addition, there are five areas where
we believe there may be an opportunity for further industry-led
initiatives to support parents and children in their management
of potentially harmful content. Ofcom suggested to the Byron Review
team that they give consideration to these areas for potential
action. Our suggestions involved, for the most part, a refocusing
or widening of activity that is already under way in the marketplace:
we did not and are not proposing new regulatory interventions;
rather, we propose taking those that the market and/or Ofcom has
already recognised and promoting the best of these.
64. Ofcom's analysis employed a value-chain
model of the Internet content market[8]:
we considered what different contributions industry players at
each stage of the value chain can make. In the self-regulatory
context described, these industry contributions are typically
aimed at empowering or enabling parents and children to manage
their content experience, and in particular to avoid potentially
harmful content.
65. The five areas which we suggested the
Byron Team consider are, in broad order of importance: filtering,
content labelling, User Generated Content (UGC) community standards,
online advertiser codes of practice, and age verification. For
the most part, these are areas in which there is already significant
voluntary industry activity under way.
66. The use of filtering tools is an essential
element in the management of content risks; they have already
been adopted by over half the UK's parents. In relation to filtering,
we considered there are four further ideas worth exploring:
1. We recommended that the Byron team considers
exploring with ISPs and the Internet Service Providers Association
(ISPA), their trade association, the development of a code of
practice for family-friendly Internet access, with relevant characteristics
including the provision of tools, information and support—for
example in relation to parental controls for content filtering,
and Internet security (firewalls, spam-blocking tools). This code
might also create a "trustmark" or brand for family-friendly
services, like those developed in France and Australia by ISPs
and service providers. Information and awareness initiatives could
improve parental awareness of the potential benefits of such services
and of the trustmark. This could help to create incentives for
interested ISPs to focus greater attention on creating differentiated
family-friendly access propositions.
2. In the UK, Ofcom has been working with
the Home Office and industry to develop a BSI standard for filtering
products, which will allow qualifying products to carry a Kitemark.
Alongside other media literacy initiatives, we recommended that
the Byron team considers promoting awareness of Kitemarked filtering
products' benefits, and encouraging their wider adoption.
3. As well as promoting the use of filtering
products, we recommended that the Byron team considers ways of
encouraging parents to be active users of such products, reporting
instances of under- and over-blocking to their software providers.
Over time, this information will help the development of products
which better reflect the specific concerns and content standards
of UK parents.
4. We recommended that the Byron Review considers
encouraging the mobile network operators to extend their commitment
to network filtering, and allowing parents to specify a child-friendly
filtering option analogous to that possible within most PC filtering
tools (eg an age 12+ filter in addition to the 18+ one that is
currently in place).
67. Content information is also an essential
element in the management of content risks; we recommended the
Byron Review team considers promoting and supporting the efforts
described below to improve the quality of content information
in relation to commercially produced audiovisual media:
5. The Broadband Stakeholder Group, supported
by Ofcom and key industry players, is developing common principles
for the ways in which viewers should be informed about potentially
harmful or offensive commercially produced audiovisual content.
These common principles, once agreed by industry, will form the
basis of good practice in enabling viewers to protect themselves
and their children from exposure to such content.
6. Looking forward, the new Audiovisual Media
Services Directive requires the UK to create a new regulatory
framework for on-demand television service providers, including
those operating on the Internet. The UK is in the early stages
of developing this model; however, effective and consistently
applied content information is likely to be a significant element
of the framework, along with other measures to control children's
access to harmful content familiar from broadcast markets, such
as PIN controls.
68. User-generated content (UGC) community
standards are the frameworks and processes through which UGC hosts,
like YouTube or MySpace, define the types of content they will
host and determine how they will deal with complaints. As outlined
above, we believe that individuals should be encouraged to participate
in the "community policing" of the sites they use, where
such tools exist. While the tools for community content management
are often sophisticated, their operation is often opaque to the
audience, and their effectiveness has been questioned.
7. We recommended the Byron Review team considers
working with industry to create a voluntary scheme or code under
which UGC providers make transparent the operation of their content
review processes—for example, reporting on the turnaround
times for these processes, on the timetable (if any) for communicating
with complainants, and ideally, with independent verification
of performance. This type of scheme could mirror the commitment
made by Facebook to the New York Attorney General concerning its
complaints-handling process, under which Facebook sets targets
and makes reporting commitments in relation to complaints about
sexually explicit content.
69. Similarly, Ofcom's examination of potential
risks from sharing personal information on social networking sites
suggests that the development and adoption of an industry code
of practice will be important in securing improved protection
for users. The Home Office Task Force on Child Protection on the
Internet has been developing guidelines for SNS providers over
the past year, in close collaboration with industry and consumer
groups; the adoption of these guidelines will go some way in helping
to address some of the privacy risks identified.
70. We recommended the Byron Review team
considers exploring with the online advertising industry ways
to reduce further the extent to which mainstream UK online advertising
is placed around harmful content. Initiatives might include:
8. Encouraging greater take-up of the IASH[9]
Code (or a similar framework) so that it covers a much greater
proportion of UK online advertising sales; and
9. information/educational initiatives directed
at improving awareness among advertisers and agencies of the means
through which online advertising can be made more secure.
71. Finally, although age verification has
the potential to be valuable in managing risks to children, practical
hurdles, including implementation and cost, will tend to limit
its impact. Nonetheless, Ofcom recommended that the Byron Review
team considers whether there might be any opportunity to encourage
the use of age verification to restrict access to harmful content.
Conclusion
72. It is our view that, taken together,
the combination of enhanced media literacy skills on the part
of adults in general, parents, children and young people, and
targeted industry, NGO, regulatory and government initiatives,
will help deliver an environment in which:
— parents are more confident of their
ability to support their children online;
— children themselves are confident
in their online e-safety and also know what to do when they come
across material that is potentially harmful or offensive; and
— consumers in general are better able
to manage and control the content they view when online and, in
particular, are better placed to decide and to determine how and
with whom they share personal information.
73. The range of potential risks, the diversity
of the means through which they can be mitigated, and the sharing
of responsibility across Government, industry and the consumer,
give rise to a complex overall system. As well as the specific
initiatives and actions described above, there is a need for continued
scrutiny of the evolving Internet environment, of the risks and
potential harms that consumers face, and the extent to which these
risks are being appropriately and effectively addressed.
74. Therefore we also encouraged the Byron
Review team to consider what success would look like. This could
frame an independent review within two years of implementation
of the recommendations, asking:
— whether there is any further evidence
regarding harm and the level of risk which should be taken into
consideration; and
— whether satisfactory progress has
been made in relation to the concerns raised and if not, whether
alternative measures need to be pursued.
3. THE BENEFITS
OF THE
INTERNET
This chapter briefly outlines the benefits and
opportunities that the Internet offers for adults and for children
and young people. The key findings are as follows:
Adults
The use of information and communication technology
(ICT) is increasingly implicated in what it means to be "socially,
economically, culturally and politically involved in the 21st
century society".[10]
As noted by Demos, "technology is now so central to many
of the activities seen to be indicative of social inclusion .
. . that it does now represent part of the "mainstream of
life".[11]
The Internet is widely and frequently used by
adults in the UK: by Q3 2007, 66% of people had Internet access
in their home, and over half of Internet users claimed to use
the Internet every day.
The use of the Internet and its status as the
medium one would miss the most is linked to age; older people,
especially those over 65, use the Internet least (although those
over 65 who do use the Internet spend on average more hours online
every month than any other age group) and are less likely to mention
it as the medium they would miss the most; the "Internet
generation" of 18-24-year-olds are the greatest users of
the Internet.
Email represents the most popular use of the
Internet, followed by web surfing, although the majority of broadband
users also use the Internet for online shopping (66%) and banking
(58%).
Benefits of the Internet to adults can be grouped
into the following areas:
— Social and communication.
— Cultural benefits—including
leisure and entertainment.
Children and young people
The vast majority of parents agreed that when
online, children discover interesting and useful things that they
did not know before, and both parents and children overwhelmingly
agreed that the Internet helps children with schoolwork/college.
Although the research is not conclusive, an
analysis of the evidence does highlight the many apparent benefits
of the Internet and the opportunities it affords for social and
educational achievement.
While TV remains the dominant medium for children
aged 5-15, the importance of the Internet to the child increases
with age in its status as the medium the child would miss the
most.
Most parents and children interviewed agreed
that children who do not have/use the Internet are at a disadvantage.
While not an issue directly raised by the Byron
Review team, the evidence also highlights the inequalities that
exist regarding children's access to the Internet and the potential
adverse implications of this for those children.
75. The Internet is a powerful platform
for the distribution of services to audiences. It is a network
of networks, spanning the world, and connecting a global audience
with a globally provided set of content and services: almost any
member of society from almost anywhere in the world can gain access
to content and services produced by anyone and hosted anywhere
on the global network. The simplicity of the protocols on which
the Internet is based, and the flexibility of the devices through
which most audiences connect to the Internet, enable an extraordinary
range of services to be created and used. Together these factors—global
reach and flexibility—have made the Internet an engine for
innovation throughout our society: in media, communications, and
business.
3.1 Key benefits of the Internet to adults
Background
76. Modern society is becoming increasingly
reliant on digital communications technology. The world around
us is changing rapidly, the various media are becoming a more
integral part of everyday life and knowledge of how to use them
is in many cases a pre-requisite to effective participation in
society:
— multifarious communications devices
are now offered to the consumer market;
— an increasing number of central and
local government services are now offered online, and
— Internet purchasing offers consumers
greater choice and more competitive pricing than traditional retailers.
77. Demos, in its report Web I'm 64,[12]
notes that "as use of the Internet has exploded, more services
and products have migrated online". The use of information
and communication technology (ICT) is increasingly implicated
in what it means to be "socially, economically, culturally
and politically involved in the 21st century society".[13]
"E-government" initiatives have seen public services
integrating online delivery and technology with everyday practice
. . . Online social tools have proliferated, from email through
photo sharing to the current crop of social network sites. For
the majority of users this brings huge benefits . . . But beyond
the financial motives, people are also finding the means to develop
and share ideas, build friendships and maintain family relationships
. . . Technology is now so central to many of the activities seen
to be indicative of social inclusion—from playing an active
role in the community to maintaining one's personal finances—that
it does now represent part of the "mainstream of life".
Reports from the Social Exclusion Unit and the Cabinet Office
have argued that those with social problems can benefit greatly
from what technology can offer [. . .]"[14]
78. Consumer take-up of devices has responded
accordingly—both in speed of take-up and ubiquity of devices.
Convenience and choice are increased and the benefits to users
include increased opportunities for:
— social and communication benefits;
— cultural benefits—including
leisure and entertainment;
— access to information and services,
and
79. However some groups in society are being
left behind, in terms of:
— ownership of new technologies; and
— access to those technologies.
Take-up
80. By Q3 2007, 66% of people had Internet
access in their home. Growth in access to the Internet has been
consistent with growth in ownership of PCs, rising from 61% in
Q2 2006 to 65% in Q2 2007. Nine in ten consumers who have a PC
also have an Internet connection at home.[15]
Figure 2
TAKE-UP OF THE INTERNET AT HOME
Frequency of use
81. The widespread availability of broadband,
together with the emergence of the Internet as a mainstream channel
for communication, information and entertainment, has led to increasing
time being spent online by those who have Internet access. Ofcom's
research finds that in Q1 2007 56% of Internet users claimed to
use the Internet every day, a four percentage point rise on a
year previously (Figure 3). A Home.net report commissioned by
Orange Broadband found that in April 2007 47% of households spent
three or more hours on the net every day. ComScore research published
in June 2007 reported that the UK had the most active online population
in Europe, with users spending an average of 34.4 hours online
a month, with a peak of more than 21.8 million people online in
any given day.[16]
Figure 3
FREQUENCY OF INTERNET ACCESS
Age distribution
Figure 4
AGE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THOSE WHO
HAVE INTERNET ACCESS AT HOME
82. Internet take-up has continued to increase
over the last two years (Figure 4) across all groups in the population.
While take-up has increased among 25-44-year-olds, it has nearly
doubled among over-75s, to 27%, although this is still less than
half the average level of take-up.[17]
Usage
83. According to Ofcom research, email is
the most popular use of the Internet, followed by web surfing,
although the majority of broadband users also use the Internet
for online shopping (66%) and banking (58%) (Figure 5). Broadband
users do more of everything than narrowband users, with a particularly
marked difference in high bandwidth applications such as gaming
and video downloading.[18]
Figure 5
ONLINE APPLICATIONS USED BY BROADBAND AND
DIAL-UP USERS, Q1 2007
Sites used
84. Measures of online use by domain or
category usually focus on reach in terms of numbers of unique
visitors in a given period. However, Nielsen NetRatings data,
measuring use by time, is also a useful metric and presents a
very different picture (Figure 6). Based on usage in April 2007,
eBay emerges as a very clear leader, with users spending over
twice as much time on the UK website as on its nearest rival.
Social networking websites also rank very highly, with Bebo, MySpace
and Facebook all in the top ten. Bebo was the second most popular
website in times of total time spent on it, despite being only
ranked 20th in terms of unique users, with users spending on average
162 minutes on it every month. Average monthly use of multiplayer
role-playing game Runescape was 318 minutes per user, lifting
it into the top 10 by time, even though it only ranks 131st by
reach.[19]
Figure 6
TOP 20 UK WEBSITES BY TIME SPENT ONLINE,
APRIL 2007
Benefits of the Internet to adult users
85. As previously noted, the benefits of
the Internet to adults can be grouped into the following areas:
— Social and communication benefits.
— Cultural benefits—including
leisure and entertainment.
— Access to information and services.
Attitudes to the Internet86. Ofcom's latest Media
Literacy Audit (to be published in Spring 2008) found that
73% of those adults surveyed considered that the main purpose
of the Internet was for information and education—47% considered
that its main role was for entertainment. Eighty-seven per cent
of those surveyed said that they had personally learnt useful
things from the Internet. The main reasons why these adults were
using the Internet were: to find out or learn things (47%), to
contact others (23%) and for fun (11%).
Financial benefits
87. The Internet brings financial benefits
to consumers as well as to the providers of services or products.
88. Demos suggest that "Consumers have
taken to e-retail in great numbers—in the year to June 2006
online sales reached £4.2 billion in the UK[20]
. . . Research has shown that using the Internet for four years
or more saves people an average of £268 per year".[21]
It has been estimated by market research firm IMRG that some 4.4
million UK people bought goods online on Christmas Day 2007, spending
£84 million and marking a 269% increase on the previous year.[22]
89. Ofcom's latest Media Literacy Audit
found that 76% of the adult Internet users surveyed bought
things online, 66% sought information relating to booking holidays,
57% bought or sold through auction sites and 51% banked or paid
bills online.
90. Research carried out by Ipsos MORI on
behalf of Nationwide in May 2007 showed that over a third (37%)
of adults now use Internet banking.[23]
Over half (53%) of Internet bank users bank online because they
believe it is convenient. Half (50%) of all users also say Internet
banking is easy to use, with a quarter giving speed as their reason
for banking online.[24]
91. Demos, in its report Web I'm 64,
notes that "£208 million is spent on central government
websites each year[25]
... Research published in 2004 suggested that local government
could save more than £300 million with more e-government
projects[26];
in 2006 Sir David Varney indicated that initiatives to create
e-services could potentially save the government up to £400
million[27]
and in 2002 the national Audit Office (NAO) suggested that e-government
technology could save government departments 10% of their operating
costs.[28]
In addition to cost savings, the NAO observes that public services
delivered online can be more convenient and efficient for service
users than traditional delivery methods".
Social and communication benefits
92. The popularity of email, and the more
recent IM, chat rooms and social networking sites, bear witness
to the Internet's role as a communications facilitator. Ofcom's
2007 Media Literacy Audit[29]
found that "contacting others"
was stated as the main reason for using the Internet by 23% of
adult users. Ninety-two per cent of users surveyed used email.
The ease, speed, price and convenience of the Internet attract
users across a range of services.
93. Ofcom's Consumer Panel Report Older
People and Communications Technology[30]
showed that connecting with family members
was an incentive for older Internet users: "Family played
an important supporting role for many of these self-starters and
children were often the reason for acquiring the first computer".[31]
Such communication can, in conjunction with other factors, play
an important part in decreasing social isolation—especially
among the elderly.
94. The Internet also helps users to find
old friends: "Fifty-two per cent of Internet users say they
have used the Internet to find friends they had lost contact with,
and 31% had done this more than once. Perhaps unsurprisingly,
those in the youngest age bracket embraced this concept the most,
with 55% of 16-24-year-olds having used the Internet more than
once to try and locate friends".[32]
The same features that help users keep in touch with old friends
also bring the benefit of enabling people to meet new people.
According to Continental Research's report, these friendships
and relationships do not always remain virtual: "28% had
eventually met up in person with someone they originally met online.
Meeting for a date was particularly common amongst 25-44-year-olds".[33]
Figure 7
USE OF THE INTERNET AT HOME
95. According to Ofcom research, and as
shown in Figure 7, 23% of adults with the Internet at home use
social networking websites, and this rises to 31% among 15-24-year-olds.
Although social networking websites are not the only way in which
people can meet people online, this tallies with research from
the Oxford Internet Survey, which found that, in 2007,
23% of Internet users had met someone online who they did not
know before using the Internet (up from 20% in 2005). Of the people
who use the Internet to meet others, 83% say they have 20 or fewer
online-only acquaintances, with 7% saying they have more than
50 (Figure 8).[34]
Figure 8
NUMBER OF ONLINE-ONLY ACQUAINTANCES
Source: The Internet in Britain, 2007, Oxford
Internet Survey
Base: All who have the Internet at home
Cultural benefits—including leisure and
entertainment
96. The Internet, as an open platform promoting
the free flow of information and freedom of speech, has brought
about cultural benefits for adult Internet users. This can best
be found in the increase of "user-created content" (UCC),
as the low entry barriers for content creation encourage more
people to publish material online.
97. A 2007 OECD report stated that this
has caused a cultural change; a "shift away from simple passive
consumption of broadcasting [ . . .] to a participatory `culture'".[35]
The report argues that "Users may derive a higher value from
this content consumption as it may be more personalised and on-demand
(one-to-one, "narrowcast") with users having greater
control over it".[36]
98. Other cultural benefits are brought
about by the Internet's compatibility with "long tail"
economics, which allows the distribution of small quantities of
products cheaply.[37]
The OECD report states that this allows "a substantial increase
in, and a more diverse array of, cultural content to find niche
users".[38]
This benefits the niche markets that would not normally be served,
and all Internet users benefit from the greater variety of choice
and expanded creativity on offer. For example, in Korea, "one
portal alone had over 150,000 literature-related forums where
classic and novel genres were created and commented on by amaeur
critics (National Internet Development Agency of Korea, 2006)".[39]
99. The availability of audiovisual content
on the Internet has also offered audiences increased choice and
convenience, free from broadcaster-defined schedules, and they
are able to access user-generated content (UGC) from across the
globe. The Internet also allows users to listen to radio stations
online and from stations worldwide—24% of adults said they
had listened online, according to RAJAR.[40]
100. This interactivity and citizen engagement
has cultural benefits in different areas: for example, news ("citizen
journalism allows users to correct, influence or create news")[41]
and political discourse and debate.[42]
Table 1
INTERNET TV MARKET FORECASTS
| Streamed TV | Dowloaded TV
|
| Numbers currently viewing in last year (millions)
| 2.9 million | 2.4 million |
| Non users likely to do in next year | 2.4 million
| 3.3 million |
| Longer term potential size | 5.3 million
| 5.7 million |
| Base: omnibus: 983 interviews |
| |
| | | |
101. The increase in online TV viewing indicates that
Internet users see this feature as a benefit, as does the research
that shows a high level of satisfaction with Internet TV. In Continental
Research's report, only 12% of viewers of Internet TV were dissatisfied
with the service.[43]
74% were fairly satisfied or very satisfied.
Access to information and services
102. Ofcom's 2007 Media Literacy Audit found that
the most frequent reason given by adult users for their use of
the Internet was to find out or learn things (47%). Seventy-one
per cent used the Internet to find out information for their leisure
time eg cinema or live music listings, 66% found out information
relating to their work/job/studies, 63% looked for information
about public services provided by local or national government,
and 60% looked at news websites.
103. In addition to the informal acquisition of information
via the Internet, a number of formal education courses now deliver
their content, and interact with students, online. Such delivery
offers students additional convenience—giving them a wider
choice of courses than might be available in their local area,
making it possible to study at home rather than attending an external
course— in addition to the schedule of study. This can be
seen to support the push for improved skills levels required in
the UK workforce, as called for in the Leitch Review.[44]
104. In 2004 the Government commissioned Sandy Leitch
to undertake an independent review of the UK's long term skills
needs. The Leitch Review of Skills, Prosperity for all in the
global economy—world class skills, was published in
December 2006. It notes that low skill levels can hold back productivity
and growth and, if not addressed, will result in increasing inequality
and the marginalisation of some groups within the labour market.
The report projects that, even if current targets are met, by
2020 the UK's skills base will be inferior to that of many other
developed nations. A radical step-change is necessary. It suggests
that the UK must urgently raise achievements at all levels of
skills and recommends that it commit to becoming a world leader
in skills by 2020, benchmarked against the upper quartile of the
OECD. This means doubling attainment at most levels of skill.
The report states that responsibility for achieving these ambitions
must be shared between Government, employers and individuals.
Political civic engagement
105. As noted above, Ofcom's 2007 Media Literacy Audit
found that 63% of the Internet users surveyed looked for information
about public services provided by local or national government
and 60% looked at news websites. This does not include those who
are involved in political causes or lobbying, via individual websites
or profiles on social networking sites.
106 The 2007 Internet and Convergence report by
Continental Research[45]
showed that users are interested in using the Internet to interact
with local government and public services. A survey of 685 visitors
to a local council's website showed that people use the Internet
to do tasks such as paying taxes and renewing library books.[46]
The results also showed that respondents wanted to do this more
in the future.
Figure 9
WHAT WAS DONE IN THE LAST YEAR (PROMPTED LIST) AND WHAT
WOULD LIKE TO DO ONLINE
Source: Internet and Convergence Report, Continental Research,
Autumn 2007
107. As the report indicated, respondents not only want
to use the Internet to fulfil their obligations, such as by paying
parking fines, but also want to use it to interact with their
local authority, keeping it informed of their concerns and encouraging
it to keep their environment clean and safe.[47]
Impact on the economy
108. Increased numbers of people working from home produce
two benefits: they enable their employers to save resources, and
they also improve their own work/life balance.
The Net Impact study
109. The Net Impact study, a project conducted
by Hal Varian of the University of California-Berkeley, Robert
E. Litan of The Brookings Institution and Momentum Research Group,
and sponsored by Cisco Systems, was designed to measure the current
and anticipated cost savings and revenue increases that organizations
believe have been created by their investment in Internet business
solutions. For the purposes of the Net Impact study, the
researchers defined an Internet business solution as any initiative
that combined the Internet with networking, software, and computing
hardware technologies to enhance or improve existing business
processes or create new business opportunities.
110. The study was conducted in the US, the UK, France,
and Germany.
111. In the US, the study surveyed more than 2,000 senior
decision-makers charged with implementing Internet business solutions
for their organisations and, with the results, created a projection
of the financial impact on the entire US economy.
112. The Net Impact study was replicated in Europe,
focusing on the three largest European economies: the UK, France,
and Germany. A total of 634 organisations were interviewed for
this portion of the study.
Preliminary results
113. According to the preliminary results of the study,
organisations in the US, the UK, France, and Germany currently
deploying Internet business solutions have realised cumulative
cost savings of $163.5 billion.
In the US
114. The deployment of Internet business solutions has
yielded to date cumulative cost savings of $155.2 billion to US
organisations. Those that are currently deploying Internet business
solutions expect to realise more than $500 billion in cost savings
once all Internet solutions have been fully implemented by 2010.
115. Once all current solutions have been fully implemented,
the "Net Impact" of these cumulative cost savings is
expected to account for .43 of a percentage point of the future
increase in the annual US productivity growth rate.
In the UK, France, and Germany
116. Adoption of Internet business solutions in the UK,
France and Germany has resulted in cumulative cost savings of
€9 billion ($8.3 billion) to organisations deploying Internet
business solutions. These organisations estimate that Internet
business solutions have also helped enhance their revenues by
€86.4 billion ($79 billion) to date.
117. Dr Sushil Wadhwani, a member of the Bank of England's
Monetary Policy Committee, stated in 2000 that: "The Internet
lowers search costs, reduces barriers to entry and helps shorten
the supply chain. These features should help boost productivity,
lower profit margins and help cut the equilibrium rate of unemployment
[. . .]"[48]
Mobile
118. Mobile telephony contributes an estimated £22.0
billion to UK GDP (figures from 2003). This is equivalent to 2.2%
of the UK's total economic output.[49]
To put this into perspective, it is "smaller than construction
but the same size as the UK's oil and gas industry. The contribution
of mobile telephony is about half the direct contribution of construction
(5.8% of GDP) and slightly smaller than the direct contribution
of hotels and restaurants (3.4%). But the contribution of mobile
telephony is in line with oil and gas extraction (2.3%); food
manufacturing (2.3%) and printing, publishing and paper (2.2%)".[50]
3.2 Key benefits of the Internet to children and young
people
119. In the market research conducted for this submission,[51]
the vast majority of parents agreed that, when online, children
discover interesting, useful things that they did not know before
(92% of parents). Parents, young people and children[52]
all overwhelmingly agreed that the Internet helps children with
school/college work (92% of parents and 81% of children).[53]
120. In Becta's Harnessing Technology Review 2007:
Progress and impact of technology in education, it is noted
that:
"There is increasing evidence that the use of ICT can
help raise educational standards, though this is influenced by
the context in which the technology is used. Links between e-maturity
and school performance have been demonstrated both through analysis
of national data and the evaluation of the ICT Test Bed project.
The latter found a strong improvement in the attainment of pupils
(see Figure 10), particularly at Key Stage 2".
Figure 10
COMPARISON OF TEST BED SCHOOLS WITH THE NATIONAL PICTURE
AND COMPARATOR SCHOOLS IN CORE SUBJECTS
121. The report also goes on to say that: "Where
technology is used to support learning, even if utilised purely
to enhance existing practice, we can now be confident there is
a positive general impact on learning outcomes. Since the 2003
ImpaCT2 study, statistical links between the use of technology
and learning outcomes have been identified in an increasing body
of evidence, ranging from studies of home use of ICT by learners,
to studies of the impact of specific technologies (for example,
interactive whiteboards) on learning, and analysis of the relationship
between the development of school e-maturity and school improvement.
In the FE and skills sector, robust evidence of impact on outcomes
is limited".
122. Research with primary and secondary school teachers,
published in this report, also points to the positive motivational
and attainment impact of ICT on pupils:
Table 2
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERS' VIEWS OF IMPACT OF ICT
(PERCENTAGE AGREEING ICT CAN HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE GROUPS
LISTED)
| | Motivation
| Attainment | Base (all
|
| Agree |
| Agree | | primary
|
| Strongly | Agree
| Strongly | Agree
| teachers |
| % | %
| % | % | answering
|
| Key Stage 1 pupils | 49 | 45
| 26 | 48 | 539/535
|
| Key Stage 2 pupils | 56 | 42
| 27 | 52 | 559/552
|
| Girls | 43 | 53
| 24 | 53 | 594/580
|
| Boys | 59 | 39
| 29 | 50 | 595/580
|
| Able or gifted and talented pupils | 53
| 42 | 29 | 49 |
598/586 |
| Pupils with special educational needs | 58
| 39 | 32 | 51 |
600/586 |
Source: Harnessing Technology in Schools survey 2006 (Kitchen,
Finch and Sinclair, 2007)
| | Motivation
| Attainment | Base (all
|
| Agree |
| Agree | | primary
|
| Strongly | Agree
| Strongly | Agree
| teachers |
| % | %
| % | % | answering
|
| Key Stage 3 pupils | 42 | 49
| 20 | 47 | 1,184/1,174
|
| Key Stage 4 pupils | 38 | 51
| 23 | 47 | 1,162/1,150
|
| Girls | 30 | 52
| 19 | 47 | 1,167/1,156
|
| Boys | 47 | 45
| 23 | 48 | 1,153/1,143
|
| Able or gifted and talented pupils | 39
| 47 | 23 | 45 |
1,179/1,173 |
| Pupils with special educational needs | 45
| 46 | 26 | 47 |
1,173/1,163 |
Source: Harnessing Technology in Schools survey 2006 (Kitchen,
Finch and Sinclair, 2007)
123. Around two-thirds of the parents (67% of parents
of 8-17-year-olds) and children (64% of 8-17-year-olds) interviewed
in research conducted for this submission agreed that children
who do not have/use the Internet are at a disadvantage. Agreement
with this statement increases with the age of the child in the
household—58% of parents of 5-7-year-olds agree, rising
to 69% of parents of 16-17-year-olds. Around one in four parents
and one in five children aged 8-17 disagreed with this statement—in
other words they did not agree that children who do not have/use
the Internet are at a disadvantage. Those who have, or are, children
who access the Internet but not from home are more likely to disagree
(43% and 30% respectively), as are C2 children and DE parents
(35% and 34% respectively).
124. The findings about Internet access being an advantage
to children are consistent with a qualitative study conducted
earlier on this year by Ofcom's Consumer Panel: in Children
and the Internet[54]
it is reported that from about age 10, most children believe
that Internet access is a "must have". Key benefits
for children were found to centre on social communication and
inclusion—the Internet enabled those children who were not
in the "in crowd" to participate, as their personalities
could shine through in the more impersonal communication over
the Internet. Educational achievement was of secondary importance
to many of the children; however, from the age of 10 onwards,
there was a reported pressure from schools for families to get
the Internet and a sense that access to the Internet allowed willing
students to attain a higher quality of presentation and content.
The research also suggested that use of the Internet had a role
in re-engaging some of the educationally disengaged, as they enjoyed
the control and fun of working with a PC. Children who didn't
have home Internet access believed that they had inferior technical
skills to those who did. The report also found that children who
were already outside their social peer group risked becoming further
isolated without Internet access. However, the study also found
that having the Internet at home did not guarantee social and
educational achievement. It strongly depended on how the Internet
was used and controlled and the type of child who was using it.
125. From a labour-market perspective, awareness and
the ability to use ICT is recognised increasingly as a basic skills
requirement, and the Skills Strategy recognises ICT as the third
essential "Skill for Life" (alongside literacy and numeracy).[55]
The Internet enables learning to occur not only in educational
institutions, but also at home, and to be personalised to a greater
degree—although not all the research found beneficial effects
and there is debate about the effect of other variables and timescales.
What does seem to be critical is the way in which ICT is used
and some commentators argue that there has been a lack of training
for teachers in this area.
126. As noted in a recent report by Futurelab: "Whilst
ICT use is certainly not a pre-requisite to surviving in 21st
century society [. . .], it is almost certainly an integral element
of thriving in 21st century society".[56]
127. While the majority of children access the Internet
at school, and recent figures show that 64% of children aged 5
to 15 use the Internet at home, home Internet access is not consistent
across social and economic groups: 81% of children from AB families
access the Internet at home, compared to 46% of children from
DE families.[57]
128. IPPR[58]
notes that lack of engagement with ICT cannot be explained simply
in terms of access and skills. "It is becoming increasingly
clear that it is a social, economic and cultural phenomenon, relating
to motivation, confidence, assistance and the type of content
available on the Internet". The IPPR suggests that the digital
divide is a symptom of economic inequality, and not a cause, and
so: "exclusion from technological networks tends to go hand
in hand with a variety of other forms of exclusion. These include:
low skills; lack of confidence in ICT use and general literacy;
lack of informal technical support (ie friends and family with
good skills); and lack of social reasons to use ICT (eg if one's
peers are not using email, for instance, then that removes much
of the incentive to use it)".
129. The increasingly important role of the Internet,
particularly for older children, is further demonstrated when
we ask them what media activity they would miss the most. As can
be seen in Figure 2, the importance of TV declines with age while
that of the Internet—and mobile phones—increases.
This is a trend that appears to be accelerating. For example,
Ofcom's 2005 research into media literacy found that 6% of 8-11-year-olds
and 8% of 12-15-year-olds said they would miss the Internet the
most, compared to 11% of 8-11-year-olds and 23% of 12-15-year-olds
in 2007.
Figure 11
MEDIA ACTIVITY CHILDREN WOULD MISS MOST
Q: Now of the ones you do almost every day, which one of these
would you miss doing the most if it got taken away?
Base: Children aged 5-15 (3,696)
Source: Ofcom—Young People & Media, April to September
2007
4. ADULTS' AND
CHILDRENS' SAFETY
AND WELLBEING
WHEN ONLINE
130. This chapter draws primarily on Ofcom's submission
to the Byron Review and the research conducted in support of that
submission. It is therefore focused primarily on the findings
from a range of consumer research studies looking at: children's
use of the Internet; rules for use of the Internet in the home
and ways in which parents are currently trying to make the Internet
a safe experience for their children; attitudes to the Internet—both
benefits and concerns; current level of exposure to potentially
harmful or inappropriate material online, the actions taken when
exposed, and a comparison of responses from parents and their
children in order to understand gaps and differences in knowledge,
perceptions and attitudes.[59]
131. Where relevant research findings for adults are
available, these are included. A summary of the key adult findings
is included in Annex 5b and it focuses primarily on adults' Internet
use, behaviours and their concerns.
132. The key findings are as follows:
The Internet is much used and valued by children and parents
as well as adults more generally. The importance of the Internet
to the child increases with age.
— Overall, 99% of children aged 8-17 say that
they use the Internet, and 80% of households with children aged
5-17 have Internet access at home (compared to 57% of households
without children).
— While TV remains the dominant medium for
children aged 5-15, the use and importance of the Internet to
the child increases with age, both in terms of hours of use and
in its status as the medium the child would miss the most.
— Average hours of use of the Internet by children
has increased greatly over the past two years (from 7.1 hours/week
in 2005 to 13.8 hours/week in 2007 for 12-15-year-olds).
— The uses made of the Internet by children
vary considerably by age: younger children tend to use it more
to play games, older children as an educational tool as well as
for searching, email, watching or downloading video clips, and
using social networking sites.
— Younger adults tend to use the Internet more
and for a broader set of activities than older adults; the most
popular online activities overall are using email, surfing in
general and purchasing things. Younger adults also value the Internet
more than older adults. As with children, average hours of use
of the Internet has also increased over the past two years (from
6.5 hours/week to 8.2 hours/week, especially among younger adults).
A mixed picture emerges regarding the degree and effectiveness
of parental oversight of Internet use at home.
— For a start, one of the challenges faced
by parents is that almost half (47%), believe their child is more
skilled at using the Internet than they are. This is especially
true of the parents of older children (61% of parents of 12-17-year-olds).
— There are also differences in what parents
and young people say about the presence of "Internet rules"
at home: the research indicates that parents tend to claim greater
presence and use of these rules compared to children, especially
in the case of children under 15.
— Just over half of all parents said that they
had content filtering software installed; a further 9% said that
they had not heard of filtering (until now) but would be interested
in using it in the future. Around one in five were familiar with
content filtering software, but did not use it, mainly because
they trusted their children. This suggests that parents think
that this type of software is used to prevent children from accessing
certain types of content rather than as a tool which could be
used to help provide protection from such material. Other reasons
mentioned were that their children were too young to surf the
web, or because they did not think they needed it.
— While parents generally seem to have a good
understanding of what their child uses the Internet for at home,
there are some notable exceptions: they seem to be underestimating,
in particular: game playing, watching video clips, using social
networking sites and contributing comments to someone else's web
page. This is borne out, for example, by the finding that around
one in five parents do not know if their child has a social networking
site profile.
— One possible reason for this is unsupervised use;
overall, 16% of children have a computer with Internet access
in their bedroom (this rises from 1% of 5-7-year-olds, to 12%
of 8-11-year-olds and 24% of 12-17-year-olds); parents also tend
to underestimate their child's access to the Internet at a friend's
house.
— Finally, while the majority of parents believe
that they have done what needs to be done to help their child
stay safe when online, there is a sizeable group of parents (over
one in four) who say that they do not have any rules in place.
— This points to, on the one hand, a group
of parents who may not be doing enough to ensure that their children
are safe online, and, on the other hand, to another group who
have rules in place, but where there are potential shortfalls
in the effectiveness of these rules.
While almost one in seven children say they have come across
potentially harmful or inappropriate material in the past six
months, almost one in 10 parents do not know if they have or not.[60],
[61]
The likelihood of coming across such material increases with
the age of the child, as does the likelihood of the parent not
knowing if the child/young person has.
— While the majority of children and parents
agree that the child would tell the parent if they came across
something that worried them, this does not always seem to be the
case: overall, 16% of 8-17-year-olds say they have come across
harmful or inappropriate material in the past six months, while
12% of parents with children in this age group say that their
child has; almost one in ten parents (8%) do not know if their
child has come across harmful or inappropriate content in the
past six months.[62]
— Responses from parents and children indicate
that most of this material was seen at home, but children also
say that they have seen it at school or at friends'/relatives'
houses. Parents seem to be less aware of out-of-home exposure
to potentially harmful or inappropriate content. This clearly
has implications for the impact of their rules on the child's
levels of potential exposure and risk.
— Sexual content is by far the most frequently
mentioned type of inappropriate content, followed by violence
and pop-up adverts with harmful or inappropriate content.
— Most children say that they leave the site
when they come across such material, with only a small percentage
saying that they tell a parent (possibly because they are not
sufficiently concerned or worried about it).
The majority of parents (57%) do not know where to go to get
information about how to help protect their children online.
— Between 5%-8% mentioned other websites, family/friends,
or the library; 3% or less mentioned Get Safe Online, ThinkYouKnow,
the Internet Watch Foundation or CEOP (Child Exploitation and
Online Protection).
A substantial minority of parents—almost four in ten—would
not know who to complain to if they came across something potentially
harmful or inappropriate.
— Around a third would complain to the police,
14% to their ISP and 11% to the websites themselves. Most children
say they would complain to their parents (though whether they
would or not is questionable, given the findings reported above).
Although parents and children do have concerns about the Internet,
for both, the benefits outweigh the risks.
— In research conducted for this submission,
the vast majority of parents agreed that, when online, children
discover interesting, useful things that they did not know before,
and both parents and children overwhelmingly agreed that the Internet
helps children with school/college work.
— Almost two-thirds of the parents and children
interviewed in this research agreed that children who do not have/use
the Internet are at a disadvantage.
— The majority of parents agreed that they
trusted their child to use the Internet safely, and that it was
safe for them to go online, and in general the children interviewed
were more confident of their ability to manage online risk than
their parents were.
— While the majority of parents clearly have
concerns about the Internet (66% of all parents have concerns),
the reverse is true of children (30% of 8-17-year-olds have concerns).
Just over three in five adults (63%) have concerns about what
is on the Internet. However, around half of the younger adults
(aged under 24) do not have any concerns.
— Parents are particularly concerned about
sexual content, violent content and paedophiles/perverts masquerading
as young people, their children about sexual and violent content.
These are also some of the top concerns for adults more generally,
along with identity fraud and other online security issues.
— While parents overwhelmingly believe that
Internet users must be protected from seeing inappropriate or
offensive content, slightly more than half agree that Internet
sites must be free to be expressive and creative. Similarly, adults
also clearly agree (78%) that users should be protected from inappropriate
or offensive content, but at the same time just over half agree
that Internet sites must be free to be expressive and creative.
— Finally, a majority of parents think that
the benefits of the Internet outweigh the risks, and that real-life
concerns like bullying and violence are more worrying. Children
in particular agree with the latter statement.
The majority of adults say they have concerns about sharing
several types of personal information online, and most say they
would make a personal judgement about a website before entering
any personal details (one in ten say that they would not make
a judgement, especially those aged 16-24 (17%)).
However, this sense of caution does not necessarily appear
to translate to the type of information shared on social networking
sites, perhaps driven by the younger age profile of such users:
although people of all ages have a social networking profile (22%),
the majority are aged 16-24 (54%).
Qualitative research suggests that privacy and safety issues
are not "top of mind" for SNS users. Social networking
is associated with users' homes and leisure time, and a sense
of ease and fun. Users gave several reasons for not actively taking
steps to reduce any potential risk regarding the information they
share about themselves: lack of awareness, the assumption that
the SNS provider had taken care of the issues, ICT confidence,
information on privacy settings being difficult to find, other
sites perceived to pose a greater risk, the "invincibility
of youth", and the desire for attention outweighing safety
concerns.
4.1 Media use in the home
133. Overall, 80% of households with children aged 5-17
have computers with Internet access in the home, compared to 57%
of households where children are not present. This means that
of all households, 66% have Internet access at home, and take-up
peaks with 45-54-year-olds and SEG AB.[63]
134. Ownership of media-related technologies in general
tends to be higher in households with children, and in particular
in households with older children, than in those without.
135. Children's bedrooms are increasingly becoming multi-media
centres: for example, 48% of children aged 5-17 have analogue
TV in their bedroom, 24% have multichannel television, 55% a games
console, 16% a PC with Internet access, 9% a webcam, while 61%
own a mobile phone. In general, these figures are even higher
for older children (eg about a quarter of 12-17-year-olds have
a computer with Internet access in their bedroom).
136. While TV remains the dominant medium for children,
the average number of hours spent online increases considerably
for older children. The average number of hours spent online has
also increased greatly over the past two years:
Figure 12
HOURS USE THE INTERNET AT HOME IN A TYPICAL WEEK (CHILD
RESPONSES)—2005 VS 2007
Q: 2005—How many hours would you say you spend using
the Internet at home in a typical week?
2007—Thinking about the time you spend using the Internet
at home. How many hours would you say you use the Internet on
a typical school day/weekend day?
Base: All who use the Internet at home: Children aged 8-11
(2005=378, 2007=877), 12-15 (2005=467, 2007=1,040)
Source: Ofcom—Media Literacy Audit 2005/ Young People
& Media, April to September 2007
137. These findings are consistent with those reported
in Chapter 3: the importance of the Internet to the child increases
with age (older children are more likely than younger ones to
say that the Internet is the medium that they would miss the most).
138. A different picture emerges when we asked adults
which medium they would miss the most if it was taken away. While
overall around half of the respondents said they would miss TV
the most, there were significant differences by age group. Younger
adults (16-24-year-olds) were the most likely to say they would
miss their mobile phone most, followed by the TV and using the
Internet. In contrast, all other age groups would miss the TV
the most, rising from 47% of 25-34-year-olds to 71% of over 65s.
Among 25-54-year-olds a significant minority would miss their
mobile phone or Internet, while over-55s would also miss the radio
or reading newspapers.
139. The percentage of 16-24s who report they would miss
the Internet the most if it was not available has increased by
10 percentage points since 2005 (ie from 11% to 21%).
Figure 13
MEDIA ACTIVITY ADULTS WOULD MISS MOST
Q: Now of the ones you do almost every day, which one of these
would you miss doing the most if it got taken away?
Base: All adults (2,905) 16-24 (413), 25-34 (473), 35-44 (661),
45-54 (489), 55-64 (341), 65+ (522)
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
140. When adults were asked to estimate the number of
hours per week they spent online they reported spending on average
8.2 hours per week online. Perceived time spent online was highest
among 16-24-year-olds (10 hours per week) and decreased with age
to 6 hours for over-65s. The exception is 55-64-year-olds, who
spend 8.8 online each week.
14. As with children, adults are spending more time online
at home than they were in 2005. This increase is mainly driven
by 16-24s and 55-64s.
Figure 14
HOURS OF INTERNET USE AT HOME AMONG ADULTS
Q: How many hours in a typical week would you say you use the
Internet at home?
Base: All adults who use the Internet (1,723), 16-24 (336),
25-34 (332), 35-44 (473), 45-54 (319), 55-64 (156), 65+ (103)
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
4.2 Location of Internet access
142. Overall, 99% of the 8-17-year-old children interviewed
say that they use the Internet, the majority either at home and/or
at school; almost one in five have access to the Internet only
outside their home.
Table 3
CHILDREN'S ACCESS TO THE INTERNET—SUMMARY
| Any access: 8-17-year-olds
| Most often access: 8-17-year-olds |
| PC/laptop at home | 81% |
65% |
| School/college | 86% | 26%
|
| Library | 12% | 1%
|
| Internet cafe | 3% |
|
| Friend's house | 23% | 2%
|
| Relative's house | 11% |
2% |
| Mobile phone | 7% | 1%
|
| | |
| Any Internet use | 99% |
|
| Don;t use the Internet | 1%
| |
| Use Internet but not at home | 18%
| |
Q: Do you use the Internet nowadays? If so, where do you access
it? Where do you access it most often? Base: Children 8-17 (513)
Source: Ofcom—Children, Young People & Online Content,
October 2007
143. Parents' and childrens' responses to the question
of where children access the Internet are consistent for most
locations, with one exception: parents underestimate their childrens'
access to the Internet at a friend's house. Only 10% of parents
of 8-17-year-olds say that their child accesses the Internet there,
compared to 23% of children aged 8-17.
144. Responses from parents and children regarding the
child's use of his/her mobile to access the Internet are broadly
consistent; according to the children interviewed, mobile phones
are used by 7% of 8-17-year-olds to access the Internet—this
is driven by the older age groups, specifically the 16-17-year-olds
(14% access the Internet via a mobile phone).
145. Adults in general are more likely to access the
Internet at home than anywhere else. 16-24s are more likely than
any other age group to access the Internet from somewhere other
than at home. The two other places where they are most likely
to access the Internet are at school or college (27%) and at a
friend's place (26%).
Table 4
| | Total |
16-24 | 25-34 | 35-44
| 45-54 | 55-64 |
65+ |
| School/college | 5% | 27%
| 2% | 1% | 1% |
— | — |
| Library | 5% | 11%
| 7% | 5% | 4% |
5% | 2% |
| Internet cafe | 2% | 3%
| 2% | 4% | 1% |
— | — |
| Friend's house | 8% | 26%
| 11% | 7% | 4%
| 3% | 1% |
| University | 2% | 8%
| 4% | 2% | 1% |
— | — |
| Wi-Fi hotspot/wireless | 2% |
— | 2% | 2% |
2% | 3% | 1% |
4.3 Internet use
4.3.1 Adults
146. Adults, like children, use the Internet for a variety
of activities, and adult usage also differs by age; in general,
breadth of usage is greater the younger the adult and vice versa.
"Finding out or learning things" is the main reason
stated for using the Internet (47%) by adults. This is followed
by contact with other people (23%) and "for fun" (11%).
Although this trend is reflected across age groups, there are
differences between those aged under, and over, 35 (see Figure
15 below).
147. Over a quarter of 16-24-year-olds said their main
reason for using the Internet was for contact with other people,
higher than all other age groups. 16-24-year-olds were also more
likely to say that their main reason for using the Internet was
"for fun".
Figure 15
MAIN REASON FOR USING THE INTERNET
Q: Which one is your main reason for using the Internet?
Base: All adults who use the Internet (1,723) 16-24 (336),
25-34 (332), 35-44 (473), 45-54 (319), 55-64 (156), 65+ (103)
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
148. As can be seen from Figure 16 below, 25-34-year-olds
appear to be embracing online banking more than other age groups
(69% reported that they have used the Internet for banking, compared
with 55% of the general population), while those aged 65+ appear
to have more limited use of the Internet.
Figure 16
USE OF THE INTERNET BY AGE GROUP
Q: Which, if any, of these do you or members of your household
use the Internet for whilst at home?
Base: All adults with Internet at home (905) 15-24 (129), 25-34
(210), 35-44 (212), 45-54 (179), 55-64 (117), 65+ (112)
Source: Ofcom communications tracking survey Q3 2007
4.3.2 Children
149. The uses made of the Internet by children vary quite
considerably by age: younger children tend to use it more to play
games, older children as an educational tool as well as for searching,
email, watching or downloading video clips, and for using social
networking sites:
Figure 17
CHILDREN'S USE OF THE INTERNET BY AGE GROUP
Q: Which, if any, of these do you use the Internet for?
Base: All who use the Internet at home: Children aged 8-11
(147), 12-15 (188), 16-17 (89)
Source: Ofcom—Children, Young People & Online Content,
October 2007
150. Results from Ofcom's tracking study: Young People
& Media show that the majority of 5-7-year-olds (69%) are
supervised by an adult when using the Internet at home. This falls
to 28% of 12-15-year-olds, who are more likely to be accessing
the Internet on their own (63%). This may be linked to the trend
for increased penetration of computers with Internet access in
older children's bedrooms.
151. When we compare the responses of parents and children
we see that, for the most part, parents have a good understanding
of how much time their child is spending online and what their
child uses the Internet for at home. However, there are some notable
exceptions: parents seem to be underestimating, in particular,
game-playing, watching video clips, using social networking sites
and contributing comments to someone else's website/webpage:
Figure 18
CHILDREN'S USE OF THE INTERNET AT HOME: PARENTS' PERCEPTIONS
VS CHILDREN'S RESPONSES
Q: Which, if any, of these do you use the Internet for? Which,
if any, does your child use the Internet for?
Base: All whose child/who use the Internet at home: Parents
of 8-17-year-olds (445), 8-17-year-olds (424)
Source: Ofcom—Children, Young People & Online Content,
October 2007
4.4 Parents' and children's Internet skills
152. While 47% of parents think that the child/children
in the house are more skilled than themselves, or their partner,
there are considerable variations by age: parents of younger children
are more likely to think that they—the parents—are
more skilled than their child and vice versa for parents of older
children:
— 72% of parents of children aged 5-7 say that they
(or the other parent) are more skilled; and
— 61% of parents of 12-17-year-olds say that their
child is the more skilled.
153. This assessment is consistent with children's views
on whether they or their parents are more skilled.
4.5 Parents' and children's awareness and use of social
networking and user-generated content sites
154. As reported above, two popular uses of the Internet
among children, and particularly older children, are visiting
social networking sites and watching video clips on user-generated
content sites, and parents tended to underestimate this usage.
This section looks briefly at the differences between parents
and their children with regard to social networking and user-generated
content sites.
Children's and parents' awareness and use of social networking
sites
155. Half of the parents interviewed had heard of the
term "social networking sites" (SNS) and a further third
had heard of such sites after being provided with their description.
Ofcom's qualitative research into social networking also showed
low levels of familiarity with the term "social networking
site", rather consumers are more familiar with the actual
brand names of these sites. 16-17-year-olds had the highest levels
of spontaneous awareness of SNS, and this was lowest among 5-7-year-olds:
Figure 19
AWARENESS OF SNS—PARENTS VS CHILDREN
Q: Are you familiar with the term "Social Networking Sites"?
*5-7: given description and example in the same question
Base: Parents of 5-17-year-olds (653), parents of 8-17-year-olds
(537), children aged 5-7 (140), 8-11 (198), 12-15 (208), 16-17
(107)
Source: Ofcom—Children, Young People & Online Content,
October 2007
156. Older children are far more likely to have an SNS
profile than younger children, and children in general are far
more likely to have a profile than are parents:
— 16% of all parents aware of social networking
sites say they have a profile on a site, compared to 27% of 8-11-year-olds,
55% of 12-15-year-olds and 67% of 16-17-year-olds.
— This is equivalent to 15% of all parents having
a profile, 19% of all 8-11-year-olds, 54% of all 12-15-year-olds
and 66% of all 16-17-year-olds.
157. While most parents are aware of these sites, many
of them think that their child does not have a profile when in
fact he/she says that they do, and almost one in five parents
does not know if their child has a SNS profile:
Figure 20
PROFILES ON SNS—PARENTS VS CHILDREN
Q: Do you have a page or profile on a social network site?
Does your child?
Base: All aware of social networking sites/whose child uses
the Internet—Parents of 5-17-year-olds (579), parents of
8-17-year-olds (481), children aged 8-17 (451), 8-11 (143), 12-15
(202), 16-17 (106)
Source: Ofcom—Children, Young People & Online Content,
October 2007
158. More parents than children say that they have rules
in place for SNS use (65% of parents of 8-17-year-olds who believe
that their child has a profile say that they have rules in place,
versus 53% of 8-17-year-olds with a profile).
159. The key rules relate to:
— restrictions on meeting new people online (30%
of parents with 8-17-year-olds, 13% of 8-17-year-olds—the
biggest gap);
— giving out personal details (27% of parents of
8-17-year-olds, 26% of 8-17-year-olds), and
— meeting online contacts in person (17% of parents
of 8-17-year-olds, 10% of 8-17-year-olds).
Parents underestimate the extent of their children giving
out personal information online, and almost one in ten do not
know if their child does this.
160. There is also a considerable gap between parents'
awareness of the privacy setting of their child's SNS profile.
When asked whether their child's profile was currently visible:
— 70% of parents of 8-17-year-olds with a page on
a social networking site said that the profile was visible, 10%
said that it was not, and 20% replied "don't know".
— This is in contrast to the 83% of 8-17-year-olds
with a profile who said their profile was currently visible.
161. However, of the parents who were aware that their
child had a visible profile, most had a good understanding of
its visibility to friends (53% of parents of 8-17-year-olds said
their child's profile was visible only to their friends, compared
with 58% of 8-17-year-old children).
Children's and parents' awareness and use of user-generated content
sites
162. Spontaneous awareness of the term "user-generated
content sites" (UGC) is much lower than that recorded for
social networking sites: just 15% of parents of 8-17-year-olds
and 14% of 8-17-year-olds said they were aware of this term. However,
awareness rose significantly after respondents were presented
with a short description of these sites and further still when
given examples of websites. Overall awareness is 83% among parents
and 86% among 8-17-year-olds.
Figure 21
AWARENESS OF UGC SITES—PARENTS VS CHILDREN
Q: Are you familiar with the term "User Generated Content"
sites?
Base: All parents (653), parents of children aged 8-17 (537),
children aged 5-7 (140), 8-11 (198), 12-15 (208), 16-17 (107)
Source: Ofcom—Children, Young People & Online Content,
October 2007
163. Older children and young people are more likely
than younger children to have viewed content on UGC sites, and
older children and young people in general are far more likely
to have viewed content on these sites than their parents: 50%
of parents of 8-17-year-olds said that they had viewed content
on a UGC site, compared to 47% of 8-11-year-olds, 83% of 12-15-year-olds
and 76% of 16-17-year-olds.
164. While most parents are aware of these sites, many
of them think that their child has not viewed content on a UGC
site when in fact the child says that he/she has (49% vs 70%),
and almost one in five parents do not know if their child has
viewed any UGC in the past six months.
Figure 22
VIEWED CONTENT ON UGC SITES—PARENTS VS CHILDREN
Q: Have you viewed any content (photos or videos) on a User
Generated Content site, such as YouTube or Flickr in the last
six months?
Base: All aware of user-generated content sites: Parents of
children aged 5-17 (524), parents of children aged 8-17 (443),
children aged 8-11 (142), 12-15 (197), 16-17 (104)
Source: Ofcom—Children, Young People & Online Content,
October 2007
165. Compared with social networking sites, families
are less likely to have rules in place around the use of UGC sites,
but again, more parents than children say that there are rules
in place: 46% of parents of children aged 8-17 said they had rules,
somewhat higher than the 39% of 8-17-year-olds who said this was
the case.
166. Where rules exist, they are often either an all-out
ban on visiting these sites, or restrictions relating to the viewing
and posting of content (each is mentioned by around one in ten).
Parents and children give similar accounts of the rules in place.
4.6 Families' rules about going online
While the majority of parents believe that they have done
what needs to be done to help their child when online, almost
one in ten do not believe they have done so [. . .]
— 84% of parents of 8-17-year-olds agreed that they
had provided their child with enough information to stay safe
online, and 7% disagreed. The majority of children agreed with
this (85% agreed, 6% disagreed).
— This figure ranges from 86% of parents of 5-17-year-olds
whose child accesses the Internet from home to 61% of those parents
whose child uses the Internet but does not have access at home.
— 73% of parents with children aged 8-17 agreed
that they had appropriate measures in place to keep children safe
online; 8% disagreed.
— This figure ranges from 79% of parents of 5-17-year-olds
whose child accesses the Internet from home to 48% of those parents
whose child uses the Internet but does not have access at home
[. . .] and around a quarter say that they have not done
any of the following:
— Discussed what they can or cannot do online (58%
of parents of 8-17-year-olds said they had done this; 54% of children
aged 8-17 said that their parent had done this).
— Discussed how to stay safe online (overall, 56%
of parents with children aged 8-17 said they had done this; 54%
of children aged 8-17 said their parent had done this).
— Discussed, or shown their child how to search
for information effectively (36% of parents said they had done
this; 28% of children aged 8-17 said they had).
— Discussed, or shown their child how to decide
if information online can be trusted or is reliable (31% of parents
with 8-17-year-olds said they had done this; 27% of children aged
8-17 said they had).
Overall, 80% of parents of 5-17-year-olds whose child
accesses the Internet from home say they have done at least one
of these—this falls to 45% of those parents whose child
uses the Internet but does not have access at home.
167. This points to, on the one hand, a group of parents
who may not be doing enough to ensure that their children are
safe online, and, on the other hand, to another group which has
rules in place, but where there are potential shortfalls in the
effectiveness of these rules.
168. While most parents and children say that there are
rules/restrictions around the child's use of the Internet, parents
perceive a higher level of oversight in the home than their children
do. The use of rules starts to fall off for children aged 12 and
over in particular:
Table 5
RULES AND RESTRICTIONS AROUND INTERNET USE: SUMMARY
| | | 5-7-year-olds
| 8-17-year-olds | 8-11-year-olds
| 12-15-year-olds | 16-17-year-olds
|
| Child responses | |
| | |
| |
| Rules | | 66%
| 64% | 71% | 59%
| 59% |
| No rules | | 27%
| 36% | 29% | 41%
| 41% |
| | |
| | | |
| Parent responses | All
| | | |
| |
| Rules | 71% | 86%
| 68% | 81% | 69%
| 50% |
| No rules | 29% | 14%
| 32% | 19% | 31%
| 50% |
Q: Do you/your parents have any rules or restrictions about
using the Internet? Base: All who/whose children use(s) the Internet:
Parents of 5-17-year-olds (621), parents of 8-17-year-olds (526),
children aged 5-7 (118), 8-11 (198), 12-15 (208), 16-17 (107)
5-7-year-olds asked what rules rather than restrictions Source:
Ofcom—Children, Young People & Online Content, October
2007
169. The following diagram summarises the rules implemented,
by age of child, as reported by the parents and children. As can
be seen, the most frequently mentioned rules relate to supervised
use (although this is mentioned by around twice as many parents
as children, which seems to undermine its credibility). Other
rules relate to the protection of the child's privacy, the amount
of time that can be spent online and the types of websites that
can be accessed. Nine per cent of parents mention controlling
their child's access with filters (see Section 4.7 for more on
the use of content filtering software):
Figure 23
PRESENCE OF RULES AND RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO INTERNET
USE: 5-7 YEAR OLDS
Q: Do you/your parents have any rules or restrictions about
using the Internet?
Base: All who/whose children use(s) the Internet: Parents of
5-7-year-olds (95), children aged 5-7 (118)
5-7-year-olds asked what rules rather than restrictions
Source: Ofcom—Children, Young People & Online Content,
October 2007
Figure 24
PRESENCE OF RULES AND RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO INTERNET
USE: 8-17 YEAR OLDS
Q: Do you/your parents have any rules or restrictions about
using the Internet?
Base: All who/whose children use(s) the Internet: Parents of
8-17-year-olds (526), children aged 8-17 (513)
Source: Ofcom—Children, Young People & Online Content,
October 2007
170. The majority of parents and children say that there
are certain things that the child does not do online because they
know it is dangerous (90% of parents of 8-17-year-olds agreed
and 86% of children aged 8-17).
4.7 Adults' "rules" about sharing their personal
information online
171. The majority of adults say that they have concerns
about sharing several types of personal information online, and
most say that they would make a personal judgement about a website
before entering any personal details (one in ten say that they
would not make a judgement, especially those aged 16-24 (17%)).
Figure 25
INFORMATION PREPARED TO GIVE WHEN REGISTERING ON SITES
ON THE INTERNET
Q: Please look at the options shown on this card. I'm going
to read out some details about information you could be asked
to enter when you're on the Internet, and for each one I'd like
you to say how you would feel about doing this in terms of any
security concerns.
Base: Adults aged 16+ who use the Internet at home or elsewhere
(1,723)
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
Figure 26
WHETHER WOULD MAKE A JUDGEMENT ABOUT A WEBSITE BEFORE
ENTERING PERSONAL DETAILS
QIN42: Could you tell me whether you would make a judgement
about a website before entering these types of details? (credit/debit
card details, home/mobile number, home/e-mail address) (Shows
spontaneous responses from 4% or more of all Internet users)
Base: Adults aged 16+ who use the Internet at home or anywhere
else (1,723)
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
4.8 Adults' awareness and use of social networking and
user-generated content sites
172. Just over one-fifth of adults reported that they
had already set up their own social networking profile or page,
while a further one in ten were interested in doing so.
Figure 27
Q: I'd like to read out a number of things people might do.
For each one, could you please tell me if you've done it, you'd
be interested in doing it, or not interested?
Base: All adults (2,905)
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
173. Figure 28 illustrates the age profile of those who
had already set up their profile, as this was the greatest demographic
variation. Younger adults were more likely to have already set
up their own profile than others. Over half (54%) of 16-24-year-olds
had done so, as well as 28% of 24-35-year-olds. The penetration
level of setting up a personal page or profile on a website decreases
significantly among over-35s.
Figure 28
PROFILE OF ADULTS WHO HAVE SET UP THEIR OWN PAGE OR PROFILE
ON AN SNS
Base: All adults who use the Internet (1,723), 16-24 (336),
25-34 (332), 35-44 (473), 45-54 (319), 55-64 (156), 65+ (103)
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
174. Consistent with numerous media reports, the top
three SNS among respondents in November/December 2007 were Facebook,
MySpace and Bebo. The majority of adults who had used an SNS had
a profile on Facebook and this was the most mentioned main SNS.
Nearly half had a profile on MySpace and one-third on Bebo.
175. Due to the lower percentage of over-35s reporting
that they had a profile on an SNS, it was possible to look only
at the age profile of under-35s.
176. Respondents with a profile on an SNS claimed to
use the sites fairly frequently, with 87% accessing them at least
once a week, and 50% at least every other day.
Figure 29
FREQUENCY OF VISITING AN SNS
Q: How often do you visit any sites like Piczo, Bebo, Hi5,
Facebook or MySpace?
Base: All adults with a profile or page on SNS (347)
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
Why people use SNS
177. Communication is the most-mentioned activity on
SNS—talking to friends and family who they see a lot, as
well as those they see rarely, and looking for old friends they
have lost touch with.
178. It is worth noting that when people communicate
through SNS, they talk mainly to people they know in some way.
Around two-thirds reported talking to friends and family, 47%
looked for old friends and 35% talked to people who were friends
of friends. In comparison, 17% talked to people they didn't know.
Those who reported talking to strangers are significantly more
likely to be 16-24 (22%)-year-olds than 25-34 (7%)-year-olds.
179. Use of SNS is not exclusively about communicating;
people also reported looking at other people's sites without leaving
messages (40%) and listening to music/finding out about bands
(29%). 16-24-year-olds (42%) and males (34%) were more likely
than others (29% UK average) to say they used SNS to listen to
music.
Figure 30
FEATURES PEOPLE USE ON SNS
Q: Do you regularly use these sites for any of the things shown
on this card?
Base: All adults who have a social networking page or profile
(347)
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
180. Ofcom's qualitative research shows that SNS have
become an important leisure activity for many people throughout
the UK across all demographics—age, gender, ethnic and social
group. Increasingly many people now have, as standard, a mobile
phone, an email address, IM and are members of at least one SNS.
181. The ease of keeping in contact with friends, and
reaching many people at the same time are key aspects of SNS'
appeal. Use extends beyond basic networking with friends to meeting
new people, keeping up with favourite bands and adding applications
such as games, quizzes and virtual gift giving.
182. However there are potential downsides to allowing
uncontrolled access to profile information. Social networking
sites can be used to look up people for reasons other than getting
in contact with them. Anecdotal stories report employers researching
prospective employees, and research conducted on behalf of Get
Safe Online[64]
reported that 29% of social networkers had looked up colleagues,
job candidates or their boss. Furthermore, they found that the
same percentage had looked up an ex-girlfriend or boyfriend.
183. A recent high-profile example of how information
on an SNS can be used for purposes other than originally intended
is the use of profile information about, and photos of, Bilawal
Bhutto, following the assassination of his mother, former Pakistani
Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Journalists (and anyone else who
searched) were able to use Facebook to find out and publish personal
information and photos about Bilawal, a student at Oxford University.[65]
Even more pertinent in this case is that the photographs published
came from a "friend's" profile, which did not have as
strict security settings, but whose pages contained photos of
Bilawal Bhutto.[66]
Factors affecting usage
184. Qualitative research conducted by Ofcom among 39
users of SNS aged 11-30[67]
found that a number of characteristics inform how a user chooses,
and interacts with, SNS. These are summarised below:
— Most users chose sites which their close friends
were on and recommended.
— Children said they preferred sites which offered
simplicity, visual fun and entertainment (eg Bebo and MySpace).
They generally had more time to spend on these sites and tended
to be more experimental in how they used them and in the material
they posted.
— Adult users expressed a preference for sites which
were more discreet and appeared more "mature" (eg Facebook).
They tended to be more time-poor and so had less time to "play"
on these sites. In addition, those over the age of 30 might be
less confident in ICT (information communication technology),
and therefore likely to be more cautious and reserved about how
they use SNS.
— Users' online personalities seemed often to be
exaggerated versions of their real personalities, although SNS
did seem to allow quieter and shyer types to be bolder and more
experimental in the virtual world.
— Teenagers without Internet access at home felt
that they were struggling to keep up with their peers because
they lacked the social currency that SNS would give them within
their peer sets. They did attempt to access the web at friends'
houses and at the library, but their lack of regular screen time
did feel like a hindrance to them socially.
Benefits of SNS
185. In the qualitative research conducted by Ofcom among
users of SNS, respondents found it much easier to talk about the
benefits of SNS than the drawbacks. The types of benefits they
mentioned were that it was fun and an engaging leisure activity;
a way of communicating with existing friends and linking up with
old ones; of building new relationships; helping them to build
confidence and giving them the opportunity to adopt a different
persona. Although SNS users in the Ofcom sample had not actually
done this, they also mentioned using SNS for social good, such
as campaigning and joining advocacy groups.
Privacy and safety
186. The privacy and safety of users and users' information
on SNS has been covered in the media recently as well as in reports
from the Pew Foundation and the OECD, and the academic community.
While the majority of the research available focuses on children,
these are relevant issues for adults as well.
187. The OECD, in its report "Participative Web
and User-Created Content" outlined several privacy issues
with SNS and user-created content sites (we refer to this as user-generated
content in this report); privacy violations; identity theft (phishing)[68]
as well as the use of SNS by employers to check potential employees.
188. As mentioned earlier in this section, the Get
Safe Online Report 2007 stated that people had reported looking
up their ex-boyfriends and girlfriends, colleagues, job candidates
and their boss. The report also highlighted the possibility of
information being passed on without owners' consent. Their report
stated that 27% of 18-24-year-olds had posted information or photos
of other people without their consent and 7% of people had passed
on contact details from someone else's online profile without
their consent.
189. Considering the potential risk and wide coverage
this issue has received, it is important to look at what SNS users
are actually doing, what their concerns are and their awareness
of online privacy issues. Ofcom commissioned research in November
and December 2007 to investigate this, among other media literacy
issues.
190. Almost all respondents were able to say what the
privacy status of their profile was; only 3% were unable to say.
Figure 31 illustrates that respondents were fairly evenly divided;
48% reported that their profile could be seen only by their friends
and 44% said their profile could be seen by anyone.
191. 25-34-year-olds were more likely than younger people
to state that only their friends could see their profile. Due
to the lower percentage of over-35s having profiles on SNS it
is possible to look only at the age profile of users under 35.
Figure 31
AWARENESS OF WHO CAN SEE SOCIAL NETWORKING PROFILE
Q: And do you know if this profile can be seen by other people?
Base: All adults who have a social networking page or profile
(347)
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
192. Qualitative research on SNS showed that privacy
and safety issues did not emerge as "top of mind" for
the majority of users. SNS were associated with the respondents'
homes and leisure time, and promoted a sense of ease and fun.
Most users were less aware and seemingly unwilling to consider
that there could be a potential risk attached to this activity.
193. Through discussion, a number of possible risk areas
were highlighted by respondents:
— Giving out personal information. Many users
did not conceal their personal details and often included their
name, where they lived, the school(s) they attended or their place
of work. Some also published their MSN account details.
— Posting personal photographs. A number
of issues were raised in relation to this point. Firstly, some
teenage girls and young women post sexually provocative photographs
to seek the attention of the opposite sex. This appears to be
detrimentally affecting these young women's reputations. Secondly,
some older users with children were sharing their private family
photographs with their entire SNS, while believing that only their
friendship network could see them. When they realised that these
pictures could be viewed by anyone if they did not use the appropriate
privacy setting, these respondents were concerned.
— Leaving the privacy settings "open"
as default. Some users were unaware that this was the default
position, but were not concerned that people they did not know
could see their page and their personal details. This was, however,
a problem for other users, who had presumed that only those in
their friendship network could see their details.
— Becoming online friends with people they did
not know. This included accepting people users did not know,
to boost their number of friends overall. Users recognised that
by doing this they could be opening up their profiles to inappropriate
and unpleasant comments. Most users were not particularly concerned
about this.
— Meeting people in person that they didn't know.
A number of teenagers and older users had done this, and felt
that they had mitigated any risks by meeting in a public place,
bringing friends along, etc. In essence many were using SNS as
a form of free online dating.
194. Research in the Get Safe Online Report,[69]
supported the view that many people are posting personal details
online. This report stated that 25% of all people using SNS have
posted contact details on their SNS profile. According to the
research, younger people were more likely to have reported posting
this information; 34% of 18-24-year-olds and 30% of 25-34-year-olds
had posted their personal details.
Why some users were putting themselves at potential risk
195. Qualitative research conducted by Ofcom highlighted
that respondents tended not to be aware of the drawbacks of SNS,
and thought about them only when prompted.[70]
The following list outlines the reasons respondents gave for not
taking more precautions themselves/taking some type of risk.
— Lack of awareness of the issues. Many users
were simply not aware that their behaviour could be perceived
as putting themselves at risk. When these issues were discussed
in the research sessions, many respondents expressed a desire
to protect themselves more fully.
— Assumption that the SNS had taken care of any
privacy and safety issues. Some users thought that SNS sites
moderated their content.
— Levels of information communication technology
(ICT) confidence. Those who were less confident with ICT were
more resistant to changing their personal settings or exploring
the more technical aspects of SNS.
— Privacy and safety information is difficult
to find and use. All users, even those who were confident
with ICT, found the settings on most of the major SNS difficult
to understand and manipulate. Facebook, in particular, was mentioned
by a number of respondents.
— Other online sites and facilities were perceived
to have more obvious threats. For example, online dating sites,
which often encourage individuals to meet, and online banking
and shopping sites which involve the transfer of money, were both
thought to carry more obvious and worrying risks.
— Younger users felt that they were "invincible",
and that even if they were to be affected by the risks discussed,
they would be able to deal with them.
— The need for attention outweighed the need
to be safety conscious. This was particularly the case for
younger female users, who often appeared to have low self-esteem
and craved attention.
User-generated content (UGC) sites
196. Respondents reported participating in several UGC
activities (shown in Figure 32 below); the most-often mentioned
was uploading photos to the Internet (43%). For all other activities
listed in Figure 32, while the majority of respondents reported
that they weren't interested, a significant minority had either
done the activity, or were interested in doing it.
Figure 32
PARTICIPATION IN UGC ACTIVITIES
Q: For each one could you please tell me if you've done it,
you'd be interested in doing it, or not interested?
Base: All adults who use the Internet at home or elsewhere
(1,723)
Source: Media literacy audit December 2007
Privacy and safety of UGC
197. Privacy concerns are relevant to UGC sites, as well
as SNS. The OECD reports that people have used UGC to reveal content
about other people by uploading online videos, or other content,
without permission.[71]
4.9 Use of content filtering software
198. Overall, 83% of all parents are aware of content
filtering software, and of all the parents with Internet access
at home, just over half (54%) said that they had a filter installed.
199. While most said that they, or another adult, installed
this software (78% of parents of 8-17-year-olds), a minority (6%)
said that their child did this. Responses from the children are
quite different: 51% of children said that their parents or another
adult installed the software, while 23% said that they or a sibling
did it.
Figure 33
WHO INSTALLED INTERNET FILTERING SOFTWARE
Q: Who installed this software on your computer?
Base: All who currently have software installed on their home
computer and use it: Parents of children aged 5-17 (282), parents
of children aged 8-17 (237), children aged 8-17 (196)
Source: Ofcom—Children, Young People & Online Content,
October 2007
200. Most parents do not think that their child knows
how to override the filter (80% of parents of 8-17-year-olds)—in
contrast, only 67% of children said that this was the case.
201. The majority of parents are satisfied with their
filtering software (88%).
202. About one in five parents have never used filtering
software but are aware that it exists; these parents were asked
why they didn't use it. The reason most frequently given was that
they trusted their child. This suggests that these parents think
this type of software is used to prevent children from accessing
certain sites/content rather then as a tool which could provide
protection for the child. Other reasons mentioned were that their
child was too young to surf/use the Internet or that they did
not think that they needed it.
203. Nine per cent of parents who had not previously
been aware of these filters said that they would be interested
in using them in the future, while the remaining 8% of all parents
interviewed who had not been aware were not interested in using
them in the future.
204. Forty-five per cent of all parents who use, or whose
child uses, the Internet are aware of other filtering systems,
and of these just under half are aware (spontaneous) of the filters
offered by their ISPs and just under one-third are aware of filters
available on search engines.
4.10 Concerns about children going online and awareness
of where to go to get help in protecting their child online
Attitudes to the Internet[72]
The majority of parents agreed that they trusted their child
to use the Internet safely and that it was safe for them to go
online [. . .]
— 90% of parents agreed that they trusted their
child to use the Internet safely—93% of children agreed
that their parents trusted them to use the Internet safely.
— 66% agreed that it was safe for children to spend
time on the Internet (15% disagreed)—68% of children agreed
and 12% disagreed.
[. . .] and in general the children interviewed are more
confident in their ability to manage their online risk than their
parents are:
— 70% of parents agreed that they know how to avoid
online content that is inappropriate or harmful (18% disagree)—82%
of children agreed with this and 9% disagreed.
— 66% agreed that they know what to do if they come
across harmful material online (19% disagreed)—81% of children
agreed with this and 10% disagreed.
However, the majority of parents have concerns about risks
on the Internet (especially regarding sexual content, paedophiles
masquerading as children, child abuse imagery, and bad language).
Children are, on the whole, less concerned about risky Internet
content than their parents:
— 89% of parents agreed that it was a risk that
children might give out personal or private information online
(but as we saw above, just 14% of parents of 8-17-year-olds spontaneously
mention having rules about giving out personal information, indicating
that this is not necessarily a "top of mind" concern).
— 81% of parents agreed that they were concerned
that children might see sexually explicit images online (15% disagreed).
— 76% agreed that they were concerned that children
might see violent images on the Internet (15% disagreed).
— 53% of children agreed that they were worried
about seeing inappropriate things on the Internet (32% disagreed);
74% of parents agreed with this.
While parents overwhelmingly believe that Internet users
must be protected from seeing inappropriate or offensive content,
slightly over half agreed that Internet sites must be free to
be expressive and creative:
— 91% believed that Internet users must be protected
from seeing inappropriate or offensive content.
— 57% agreed that Internet sites must be free to
be expressive and creative, 20% neither agreed nor disagreed,
and 18% disagreed.
Levels of concern
While the majority of parents clearly have concerns about
the type of content/material on the Internet, the reverse is true
of children:
— 30% of children aged 8-17 said they had concerns
overall, and 40% were very, or fairly, concerned.
— 66% of all parents said they had concerns overall,
and 72% were very, or fairly, concerned.
205. Parental levels of concern about specific issues
are higher than those of their children on all fronts, particularly
regarding sexual content and paedophiles/perverts masquerading
as younger people. Although parents are more concerned about it
than their children, the gap between the responses of the two
groups with regard to violent content is closer than for sexual
content, and children are almost as likely as their parents to
mention cyberbullying and pop-up adverts with harmful or inappropriate
content.
Figure 34
CONCERNS ABOUT CONTENT ON THE INTERNET—TYPE OF MATERIAL:
PARENTS VS CHILDREN
Q: What sort of things are you worried about?
Base: Asked of all who expressed concerns about content on
the Internet and rebased on all parents/children
Source: Ofcom—Children, Young People & Online Content
206. Although they have concerns about the types of content
and material available on the Internet, the majority of parents
think the benefits of the Internet outweigh the risks, and that
real-life concerns like bullying and violence are more worrying.
Children in particular agree with the latter statement:
— 60% of parents agreed that the benefits of the
Internet for their child outweigh the risks (18% disagreed).
— 56% of parents agreed that problems like bullying
and violence in real life are more of a concern than inappropriate
content on the Internet (16% disagreed); 68% of children agreed
and 11% disagreed.
— Parents are almost evenly split on being more
concerned about harmful content on TV than online (34% agreed,
27% neither agreed nor disagreed and 37% disagreed).
Awareness of where to go to get help in protecting children online
207. Despite these high levels of concern, the majority
of parents (57%) don't know where to go to get information to
help them protect their child online.
Figure 35
WHERE PARENTS GET INFORMATION TO HELP THEM PROTECT THEIR
CHILDREN ONLINE
Q: Do you know where to go in order to get information to help
you protect your child when online? (Unprompted)
Base: All whose child uses the Internet: Parents (621)
Source: Ofcom—Children, Young People & Online Content,
October 2007
4.11 Children's exposure to potentially harmful or inappropriate
content in the past six months
Level of exposure[73]
208. Despite the fact that the majority of children and
parents agree that the child would tell a parent if they came
across something that made them uncomfortable (85% of parents
of 8-17-year-olds agree with this and 87% of 8-17-year-old children
agreed), this does not always seem to be the case:
— Overall, 16% of 8-17-year-olds said that they
had come across harmful or inappropriate material in the past
six months, while 12% of parents of 8-17-year-olds said that their
child had had such exposure; a further 8% of parents did not know
if their child had come across harmful or inappropriate content
in the past six months. The likelihood of coming across such material
increases with the age of the child, and the likelihood of the
parent not knowing if the child has come across such material
also increases with the age of the child.
— When questioned about "nasty, worrying or
frightening" material on the Internet, 16% of children aged
8-15, questioned as part of Ofcom's 2005 media literacy research,
said they had come across such material; this is similar to the
findings reported here.
209. Sexual content is by far the most frequently mentioned
type of harmful or inappropriate content that users come across:
— Sexual content (mentioned by 67% of parents of
8-17-year-olds and 46% of 8-17-year-olds).
— Bad language (8% each of parents and children
aged 8-17).
— Paedophiles (7% of parents of 8-17-year-olds,
not mentioned by the children).
— Pop-ups (8% of parents; 12% of children).
— Violent content (7% of parents, 16% of children).
The UK Children Go Online survey in 2004 found that
57% of 9-19-year-olds who use the Internet had come across pornography
on the Internet—ranging from 21% of 9-11-year-olds to 80%
of 18-19-year-olds. This contact was most likely to come in the
form of a pop-up advert (38% of all 9-19-year-olds) or from accidentally
going to a site showing pornographic material (36% of 9-19-year-olds).
The differences in the reported level of exposure between this
research and the Children, Young People and Online Content
research probably stems from both a difference in how the
questions were asked as well as the base of children from whom
responses were drawn.
210. Responses from parents and children indicate that
most of this material is viewed at home, but children also say
that this happens at school or at a friend's/relative's house.
Parents seem to be less aware of out-of-home exposure to inappropriate
content. This clearly has implications for the impact of rules
on levels of exposure and risk.
Figure 36
WHERE CHILDREN CAME ACROSS INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT: PARENTS
VS CHILDREN
Q: Where did they/you (children) come across this content/material
on the Internet?
Base: All who/whose child have/has come across harmful/inappropriate
content on the Internet: Parents of children aged 8-17 (62), children
aged 8-17 (80), * caution—low sample size
Source: Ofcom—Children, Young People & Online Content,
October 2007
What children do when they come across harmful or inappropriate
material
211. The majority of 8-17-year-olds (87%) agreed with
the statement "I would tell my parents if I came across something
online that made me uncomfortable" and 85% of parents of
8-17-year-olds agreed that their child would tell them/their spouse
if he/she came across something online which made him/her uncomfortable.
212. However, when children were asked what they did
on each occasion when they came across harmful or inappropriate
content, the net results[74]
show that only 19% say they told a parent. Of course a reason
for this could be that the material that the child came across,
while considered harmful or inappropriate, either did not make
them feel uncomfortable, or that they were not comfortable enough
to share this with a parent. More children (40%) say they left
the site immediately, or did nothing (21%). Compare this to the
parents' responses—under half (44%) said they talked to
their child about the material, 33% told their child to leave
the site immediately and 24% say they made a complaint.
213. Those parents who did not make a complaint were
asked why they did not.[75]
The most common response was that they didn't know who to complain
to, followed by the fact that they thought it wouldn't make any
difference if they did.
214. A substantial minority of parents—almost four
in ten—did not know who to complain to. Around a third said
they would complain to the police, 14% to their ISP and 11% to
the websites themselves. Most children say they would complain
to their parents.
Figure 37
AWARENESS OF WHO TO COMPLAIN TO ABOUT INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT
ON THE INTERNET: PARENTS VS NON-PARENTS
Q: As a general rule, who would you contact if you had a complaint
about content/material you saw online that you considered harmful/inappropriate?
Base: Parents (653), non-parents (279)
Source: Ofcom—Children, Young People & Online Content,
October 2007
215. Children were less likely to say they didn't know
who to complain to, as the majority would turn to a parent—although
this course of action tends to be lower for 16-17-year-olds; they
are more likely to mention the websites, ISPs and the police.
Mobile concerns felt by a minority of parents and even fewer children
216. All groups are much less concerned about harmful
or inappropriate content on mobile phones. Those who said they
had concerns mentioned similar issues to those on the fixed Internet.
Sixty per cent of all parents mentioned sexual content and 39%
violent content. Twenty-nine per cent of parents said they were
concerned about bullying, 22% mentioned "happy slapping"
and a further 8% mentioned the misuse of mobile phones.
4.12 Adults' concerns about the Internet
217. Over three in five (63%) adults reported having
some concern about Internet content. The proportion of people
who expressed concern increased with age and peaked among 35-54-year-olds,
where three-quarters reported being concerned; this could be related
to the fact that this age group is more likely to have children.
Concerns about Internet content decrease among the over-55s. Parents
are more likely to have concerns about what is on the Internet
than those who do not have children. In particular, parents are
more likely to be concerned about paedophiles, sexual content,
inappropriate content for children, violence, websites showing
abuse of children, identity fraud/access to personal details,
computer viruses, spam, pop-up advertising and insecure sites.
218. The lower percentage of people concerned in older
age groups is likely to be related to a lower take-up of the Internet
at home among this group.
219. Overall, ABC1s were more likely to express concern
about a variety of issues than C2DEs, and females tended to be
more concerned than males.
Q: Can you tell me if you have any concerns about what is on
the Internet
Base: All adults (2,905), 16-24 (413), 25-34 (473), 35-44 (661),
45-54 (489), 55-64 (341), 65+ (522)
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
220. Respondents reported a variety of concerns about
what is on the Internet. The top two areas of concern were paedophiles/perverts
masquerading as younger people and sexual content/pornography.
Looking at the categories overall, Figure 39 shows that content
was the main concern, followed by online security.
221. Content concerns encompass sexual and violent content,
websites showing abuse, instructions for terrorism and suicide,
racism, and content on chat rooms. Concerns about security involve
other people getting hold of personal details or phone numbers,
claims for money, insecure sites and computer viruses.
222. ABC1s were more concerned about computer viruses,
spam, pop-up adverts, insecure sites and website instructions
on how to be a terrorist or commit suicide than C2DEs.
223. Females were more likely than males to be concerned
about sexual and violent issues (paedophiles/perverts masquerading
as young people, sexual content/pornography, Internet content
unsuitable for children, violent content and websites showing
abuse of children).
Figure 39
CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT IS ON THE INTERNET
Q: Can you tell me if you have any concerns about what is on
the Internet
Base: All adults (2,905)
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
224. The 2005 research study on media literacy asked
adults about their level of concern about what is on the Internet.
Forty-eight per cent of all adults said they were very, or fairly,
concerned. The level of concern increased to 54% in 2007.
225. Consistent with the age profile of people who were
concerned about the Internet, the profile of those who were very,
or fairly, concerned increased with age and peaked among 35-54-year-olds.
With the exception of 18-24-year-olds, over half of all age groups
reported being either very, or fairly, concerned.
226. 18-24-year-olds were fairly polarised about Internet
concerns; 40% were concerned to some extent while 50% were not
very, or not at all, concerned.
Figure 40
LEVEL OF CONCERN ABOUT THE INTERNET
Q: Overall, how concerned are you about what is on the Internet?
Base: All adults (2,905), 16-24 (413), 25-34 (473), 35-44 (661),
45-54 (489), 55-64 (341), 65+ (522)
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
227. Similar to parents, while over three-quarters of
adults overall agreed that users must be protected from seeing
inappropriate or offensive content, over half of all adults agreed
that Internet sites must be free to be expressive and creative.
228. The results reported in this section regarding Internet
content show that this is a complex issue. While people are concerned
about content on the Internet, and nearly 4 in 5 believe users
must be protected from certain content, many adults also feel
that sites need freedom to be expressive and creative.
Figure 41
ATTITUDES ABOUT THE INTERNET
Base: All adults (2,905)
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
229. The complexity of issues about freedom of expression
and protection on the Internet are reflected in Withers' (2007)[76]
report, which states that one of the main benefits of SNS is being
able to communicate with people, both inside and outside the normal
circle of friends. However, this communication with strangers
also raises the risk of potentially negative experiences.
230. Respondents had fewer concerns about mobile phones
than about the Internet (33% vs 63%). Again, 16-24-year-olds were
the least likely to say they were concerned (23%), followed by
over-64s (31%). The age profile of those expressing some concern
was fairly evenly spread.
Figure 42
CONCERNS ABOUT MOBILE PHONES: THOSE SAYING THEY HAVE CONCERNS
Q: Can you tell me if you have any concerns about mobile phones?
Base: All adults (2,905), 16-24 (413), 25-34 (473), 35-44 (661),
45-54 (489), 55-64 (341), 65+ (522)
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
231. The extent of concern about content on mobile phones
is somewhat lower than for the Internet. 6% of adults said they
were very concerned about content on mobile phones, compared with
19% for the Internet.
232. In fact, across all age groups, the highest proportion
of adults said they were not at all concerned about content on
mobile phones.
Figure 43
LEVEL OF CONCERN ABOUT CONTENT ON MOBILE PHONES
Q: So, overall, how concerned are you about what mobile phones?
Base: All adults- 2,905
Source: Ofcom media literacy audit October to December 2007
233. Unlike the Internet, respondents did not mention
content when asked what aspect of mobile phones they were concerned
about. Health and the cost of calls were the top two areas of
concern.
Q: Can you tell me if you have any concerns about mobile phones?
Base: All adults (2,905)
Source: Ofcom Media literacy audit October to December 2007
5. A REVIEW OF
THE LITERATURE
ON THE
RISK OF
HARM AND
OFFENCE ON
THE INTERNET
As part of its evidence gathering for its submission to the
Byron Review, Ofcom commissioned Sonia Livingstone and Andrea
Millwood Hargrave to update the literature review "Harm and
Offence in the Media", first published in 2006. The updated
literature review focuses on research with children in the areas
of TV, games, the Internet and mobile phones. Annex 6 contains
their full report ("Harm and Offence in Media Content: Updating
the 2005 Review"). This chapter contains their summary and
conclusions for the Internet (which incorporates and updates the
previous review) and their overall argument for a risk based approach
to the issue of media harm. This chapter also provides a short
update from Professor Livingstone and Ms Millwood Hargrave regarding
their views on the literature as it pertains to adults.
Children
Internet summary and conclusions
234. The evidence from this review on the potential harm
from content provided through television and video games is clearly
linked with the type of material contained in that content—for
example, violent content or material that depicts sexist stereotypes
and the potential effect that this may have on aggressive behaviour
or on attitudes. Many researchers assume that similar effects
will occur if the same material (from television, games or film)
is encountered online, but this has not represented a distinct
line of empirical inquiry.
235. Research conducted on the potential harm from online
content includes some studies on the effects of viewing pornography
or violent content, although, since the research is rarely experimental
(ie controlling the content viewed), it is less clear exactly
what content is at issue. Some researchers, however, are concerned
that such online content is more extreme than that generally available
on other media. Furthermore, the lack of clear definitions of
levels or types of pornography, violence, etc. on the Internet,
where the range is considerable, impedes research, as do (necessarily)
the ethical restrictions on researching the potentially harmful
effects of online content, especially, but not only, on children.
Given these ethical issues, particularly when researching the
risk of harm for children, there are difficulties in calling for
more research here.
236. Despite the paucity of direct research on online
harm to children (given practical and ethical considerations),
there is a growing body of national and international research
on children's distress when they accidentally encounter online
pornography or other unwelcome content.
237. Most research regarding potential Internet-related
harm relates to risky contact rather than content, primarily that
involving interaction with other Internet users. Indeed, this
update found a number of studies that addressed the risk of inappropriate
contact (eg bullying—for which more research exists than
for the first review, and also online contact with strangers).
The research suggests that such contact may put users at risk
of harm, either directly (as in meeting strangers in dangerous
situations) or indirectly, from the consequences of their online
behaviour.
238. It also appears likely that when children receive
hostile, bullying or hateful messages, they are generally ill-equipped
to respond appropriately or to cope with the emotional upset this
causes; similarly, parents are unclear how they can know about,
or intervene in, risky behaviours undertaken—deliberately
or inadvertently—by their children.
239. Little or nothing is known about how young people
respond to hateful content, especially in terms of how the targeted
groups (mainly ethnic minorities) respond. Nor is much known regarding
the use of niche sites—such as those that promote suicide
or anorexia, though research is beginning to accumulate here.
240. Some phenomena are new since the previous Harm and
Offence review, especially regarding the uses of social networking
sites. Research on social networking sites has concentrated on
the Internet, although these are also available on mobile telephony
as a delivery platform. For user-generated content, there is still
little or no research. We have also considered excessive Internet
use ("addiction").
241. There are differences between the principal sites
used—in the UK, Bebo (and then MySpacei) is currently more
popular, while in the US much of the research has looked at Facebook,
among others, partly because of its relative popularity, partly
because US research tends to concentrate on university students
(who use Facebook).i
242. Research on the risk of harm has concentrated on
social networking sites (raising issues of privacy) rather than
on information uploaded onto user-generated content sites such
as YouTube (n.b. these are increasingly populated by "professionally"
produced material).
243. For social networking especially, the issue of verifiability
and anonymity is a problem. A significant proportion of young
people communicate with strangers online and post material about
themselves which would be considered "private" in most
circumstances. The ability to restrict access to sites is known
about but not always used. Therefore, some young people knowingly
give away inappropriate (private) information publicly (allowing
access to "anyone"). However, it seems likely that many
more do so inadvertently, as a result of limitations both in Internet
literacy and in interface design.
244. This leads to concerns about the possibility of
underestimating the unanticipated or future consequences of making
private information public, especially since it appears that many
young people have an inadequate understanding of the long-term
consequences of publishing such information (eg employers are
reported to look at social networking sites when considering employees).
245. The risks of inappropriate contact (especially in
relation to sexual predation), harassment and bullying (including
the easy dissemination of harassment or bullying content to others
in the network) represent significant and growing policy concerns
when considering the regulation of the Internet.
246. Research suggests that young people may be aware
of the risks, especially regarding social networking sites, but
this awareness of the issues and problems is not always translated
into action.
247. There is, therefore, growing evidence that, notwithstanding
their many advantages and pleasures, social networking sites permit
young people to create profiles that expose the individual or
that ridicule or harass others, that using such sites for extensive
periods of time (as is common) may isolate users of these sites
from contact with "real" people, albeit only for a few,
addicted users.
248. In short, the widespread accessibility of the Internet,
along with its affordability, anonymity and convenience, appears
to increase the likelihood of risk of media harm; although some
argue that there is little new about online content, familiar
content merely having moved online, most disagree, expressing
concern about the accessibility of more extreme forms of content
that are, potentially, harmful and offensive.
Does exposure to potentially harmful or inappropriate
material lead to harm? The literature review identifies evidence
suggesting some risk of harm. However, the evidence base is patchy
and undeveloped and, for both practical and ethical reasons, some
key questions remain difficult to research. The evidence that
does exist points to the increased potential for harm online.
Therefore, research can only guide policy by supporting a judgement
based on the balance of probabilities rather than on irrefutable
proof.
A risk-based approach
249. While the concern of regulators is with harm, much
of the research reviewed here deals with the risk of harm (by
measuring incidence of exposure to risk, risky behaviour, or the
use of certain media contents which may be harmful to some, etc).
Some of the evidence does demonstrate a link from exposure to
"actual" ill effect, although this is generally measured
either experimentally in the short term, or by using correlational
methods which cannot rule out all confounding factors. However,
we note that the above definition of harm includes both potential
and actual ill effects, and thus we discuss harm largely in terms
of possible influences on behaviour and attitudes.
250. However, we argue also that the search for simple
and direct causal effects of the media is, for the most part,
inappropriate. Instead, we need an approach that seeks to identify
the range of factors that directly, and indirectly through interactions
with each other, combine to explain particular social phenomena.
As research shows, each social problem of concern (eg aggression,
prejudice, obesity, bullying, etc) is associated with a distinct
and complex array of putative causes.
251. The research reviewed here and in the earlier review
suggests that the media may contribute—more or less, under
different conditions—to these complex social problems. A
risk-based approach would take into account the range of relevant
factors at work and allow for the possibility of their interaction.
It should also weigh the relative contributions of different factors
in explaining the outcome at issue, thus permitting a balanced
judgement of the role played by the media on a case-by-case basis.
252. We therefore call for more research that will put
possible media effects in context, seeking to understand how the
media play a role in a multi-factor explanation of particular
social phenomena (eg violence, gender stereotyping, etc), including
an account of the relative size of effect for each factor, so
as to guide regulatory decisions based on proportionality.
Adults
Video games
253. By comparison with research conducted specifically
on children, there is rather more empirical evidence regarding
the effects of playing violent video games on adults, particularly
on young men. It seems that playing violent video games is associated
with emotional tension and arousal during play, and it may increase
feelings of hostility to others or aggressive thoughts and behaviours
following play. Whether these harmful effects occur in everyday
life (rather than just in experimental conditions) and whether
they last longer than the period immediately following game play
remains uncertain, as the research findings are mixed.
Internet
254. While ethical reasons make the examination of online
risk of harm to children problematic if not impossible, some researchers
have examined the risk of harm to adults from online content and
services. Firstly, there remains rather little evidence that direct
exposure to online pornography is harmful for adults, though some
clinicians, and a few surveys, report an association between use
of online pornography and clinical problems regarding sexual or
emotional experiences offline. It is difficult to determine whether
the pornographic content referred to in such studies is consensual
or violent in nature. Secondly, surveys (typically, of American
undergraduates) point to a growing problem of stalking online,
of varying degrees of severity, this perhaps being associated
with offline stalking. Thirdly, when shown race hate websites,
adult audiences consider these "outside community standards"
but there is no evidence that their views are directly altered
by these; little or no research has examined the responses of
those who are the target of such sites.
In conclusion, research suggests that the diverse and
sometimes extreme nature of online content, and the enhanced opportunities
for online contact, is resulting in a risk of harm for some adult
users of the Internet. As for children, however, it is too early
to draw strong conclusions regarding the nature, extent or duration
of any actual harm associated with Internet use.
255. The evidence referred to above, regarding adults,
is critically reviewed in Millwood Hargrave, A and Livingstone,
S (2006). Harm and Offence in Media Content. Intellect
Press.
6. CURRENT APPROACHES
TO MANAGING
THE RISK
OF HARMFUL
CONTENT
256. In this chapter we examine the current processes,
actions and regulation through which risks to adults and children
from potentially harmful or inappropriate content online are mitigated
in the UK, and in other regions of the world. We go on to consider
where specific actions might be considered to further reduce risks,
building on current domestic and international activity. We use
a value-chain model of the Internet content market for this analysis,
exploring what role the different kinds of industry actors, from
ISPs to UGC hosts, can and might play, as well as considering
the contributions that consumers make to their own protection.
257. In developing our evidence to the Committee, and
alongside the research and literature review discussed above,
we have also undertaken a review of the operation of the Internet
content market,[77] the
legal and regulatory frameworks affecting Internet content in
the UK[78] and in a range
of other regions of the world,[79]
as well the range of existing means through which the risks from
potentially harmful are managed;[80]
(there is already a great deal of activity, by service providers,
government agencies, charities, and parents, seeking to address
this goal).
258. We do not comment on the issues relating to the
sale of games for PC and games consoles, though some of the measures
discussed below will contribute to the management of potentially
harmful or inappropriate content in games played online.
259. The chapter is divided into five main sections covering:
— an overall model for managing Internet content
risks;
— the role of industry in managing risks from potentially
harmful content including that on UGC sites and social networking
sites;
— managing illegal content;
— the role of the consumer in managing risks from
potentially harmful content, and
260. The key findings from this chapter are as follows:
The research findings reported above, and the overall conclusions
from the literature review, suggest a lack of evidence for actual
harm but evidence for the risk of harm. We can conclude from this
that there is a case for considering whether the existing regulatory
environment is adequate and what more could be done to help adults
and children manage the potential or actual risks online.
The current legal constraints and problems of jurisdictional
reach mean that statutory regulation is not possible for key parts
of the value chain and, even if adopted as an approach for the
parts where it is feasible, would be of limited effectiveness.
This is, in large part, because the Internet is an open global
platform, and statutory regulation can only have national reach—unless
the regulation also involves curtailing the openness and global
reach which distinguish the Internet from traditional platforms
and are the basis of its impact and value.
Therefore, a new approach to content regulation is needed,
one which is built on a model of responsibility distributed across
the value chain, relying much more on personal responsibility
and on industry self-regulation than on traditional, formal intervention.
There is a great deal of industry activity already under way
to help adults, parents and children manage the potential risks
from harmful content online: individual industry players and collective
self-regulatory initiatives are making a material difference.
This is particularly clear in relation to the management of illegal
content online, where the UK has a self-regulatory framework in
place which is ahead of those in many other regions of the world.
However, on the industry side, and in relation to the development
of consumer competences and awareness, Ofcom believes there are
areas where further improvement is possible. In this chapter,
we provide an analysis of the current position; we also identify
those areas where we believe further action might be appropriate,
and which we recommended to the Byron Review for consideration.
In order to help people take more personal responsibility
when they go online, we need to help them become more media literate.
Media literacy is the ability to access, understand and create
communications in a variety of contexts. Without media literacy,
people's ability to participate effectively in society, the marketplace
and in the workforce may be greatly diminished. The focus of the
Committee's inquiry is principally directed to issues related
to consumption—how to find the content and services wanted
and how to avoid the risks of potentially harmful content—and
indeed this is the focus of our response. However, Ofcom also
recognises the importance of "understanding" and "creating"
in the broader media literacy landscape, and these latter aspects
are a part of our overall media literacy work programme.
We believe that both of these elements—greater media
literacy on the part of parents, young people and children, coupled
with targeted industry support—are critical and necessary
in order to deliver a safer online environment for children.
Our analysis employs a value-chain model of the Internet content
market: we consider what different contributions industry players
at each stage of the value chain can make. In the self-regulatory
context we have described, these industry contributions are typically
aimed at empowering or enabling parents and children to manage
their Internet experience, and in particular to avoid potentially
harmful content.
Our suggestions involve, for the most part, a refocusing or
widening of activity that is already under way in the marketplace:
we are not proposing new interventions; rather, we are taking
those that the market and/or Ofcom has already recognised and
promoting the best of them.
It is our view that, taken together, the combination of enhanced
media literacy skills on the part of adults in general, parents,
children and young people, and targeted industry, NGO, regulatory
and government initiatives, will help deliver an environment in
which:
— parents are more confident of their ability
to support their children online;
— children themselves are confident in their
online e-safety and also know what to do when they come across
material that is potentially harmful or offensive; and
— consumers in general are better able to manage
and control the content they view when online and in particular
are better placed to decide and to determine how and with whom
they share personal information.
The range of potential risks, the diversity of the means through
which they can be mitigated, and the sharing of responsibility
across Government, industry and the consumer, give rise to a complex
overall system. As well as the specific initiatives and actions
described above, there is a need for continued scrutiny of the
evolving Internet environment, of the risks and potential harms
that consumers face, and the extent to which these risks are being
appropriately and effectively addressed.
Therefore, Ofcom recommended that the Byron Review considers
what success might look like; this could frame an independentreview
within two years of implementation of the Review's recommendations,
asking:
— whether there are any further learnings regarding
the evidence of harm and the level of risk which should be taken
into consideration; and
— whether satisfactory progress has been made
in relation to the concerns raised and if not, whether alternative
measures need to be pursued.
6.1 The need for an approach to Internet content risks
261. The Internet raises some new challenges for societies
which have previously been able to regulate, to a significant
extent, the media to which their citizens are potentially exposed.
The Internet is a global medium, through which it is easy for
individuals as well as businesses to offer content and services
to a global audience. In relation to a specific concern—over
the types of content to which audiences in the UK might have access—we
face a potentially unlimited number of originators of content,
operating from territories often outside our jurisdictional reach,
and where standards of legality or acceptability may be different
to those in the UK.
262. As seen in Chapter 4, our research with families
shows that while they have concerns about the Internet, for most,
the benefits outweigh the risks, and Internet use is in fact higher
in households with children than those without. That said, a mixed
picture emerges regarding the degree and effectiveness of parental
oversight of Internet use at home. Almost one in seven children
aged 8-17 say that they have come across potentially harmful material
in the past six months, and the majority of parents do not know
where to go to get information about how to protect their children
when online. Parents and other adults are, in general, more concerned
than children about the type of material available online, in
particular content of a sexual nature.
263. A review of the literature—summarised in Chapter
5—identifies evidence suggesting some risk of harm. While
ethical reasons make the examination of online risk of harm to
children problematic if not impossible, some researchers have
examined the risk of harm to adults from online contents and services.
Firstly, there remains rather little evidence that direct exposure
to online pornography is harmful for adults, though some clinicians,
and a few surveys, report an association between use of online
pornography and clinical problems regarding sexual or emotional
experiences offline. It is difficult to determine whether the
pornographic content referred to in such studies is consensual
or violent in nature. Secondly, surveys (typically, of American
undergraduates) point to a growing problem of stalking online,
of varying degrees of severity, this perhaps being associated
with offline stalking. Thirdly, when shown race hate websites,
adult audiences consider these to be "outside community standards"
but there is no evidence that their views are directly altered
by them; little or no research has examined the responses of those
who are the target of such sites. In conclusion, research suggests
that the diverse and sometimes extreme nature of online content,
and the enhanced opportunities for online contact, is resulting
in a risk of harm for some adult users of the Internet. As for
children, however, it is too early to draw strong conclusions
regarding the nature, extent or duration of any actual harm associated
with Internet use. Therefore, research can only guide policy by
supporting a judgement based on the balance of probabilities rather
than on irrefutable proof.
264. The research findings reported above, and the overall
conclusions from the literature review, suggest a lack of evidence
for actual harm but evidence for the risk of harm. We can conclude
from this that there is a case for considering whether the existing
regulatory environment is adequate and what more could be done
to help adults and children manage the potential or actual risks
online.
265. Before considering the alternative ways in which
the risks from harmful content might be addressed, it is necessary
to clarify the different forms of potentially harmful content
which create such risks, and the circumstances through which such
content becomes available. There are three distinct areas of potentially
harmful content which have led to concerns in the UK, which may
require different solutions, and which have been tackled in different
ways in international markets. These are:
— illegal content, which is unacceptable for all,
and may present risks of harm to adults as well as to children—such
as abusive images of children, sexual violence, or material encouraging
race hate;
— content, the publication of which is not illegal
in itself—ie that is appropriate for adults but not for
children, such as non-illegal sexually explicit or violent content,
and
— content which is not specifically illegal in itself,
but which depicts dangerous or illegal activity and which therefore
may encourage illegal behaviour, such as fighting among children
(and happy slapping), footage of gangs and guns, etc. Concerns
over this type of content are particularly associated with user-generated
content sites.
Traditional content regulation and regulation of the Internet—why
a new approach is needed
266. This chapter proposes that harmful content on the
Internet must be addressed in a different way to the historic
models of content regulation, exemplified by the broadcasting
market. The analysis below suggests that, in contrast to the broadcasting
market, the responsibility will be shared, and that the part played
by statutory regulation will be negligible. Many discrete activities
will contribute to the increased safety of children online, but
there is no one institution which can act as the channel does
for broadcasting: as the locus of responsibility for content standards.
267. While there is a wide range of activities in the
broadcast market (eg producing programmes, operating channels,
running platforms like Sky or Virgin Media, producing and distributing
consumer equipment like television sets and set-top boxes) for
the purposes of controlling harmful content, regulation focuses
exclusively on channel operators, who are bound to conform to
national standards in relation to the content which they offer.
The content available to UK audiences is managed through a bilateral
relationship between regulator and channel operators. The position
is very different in relation to the Internet.
268. We use a model of the Internet value chain to illustrate
the key distinctions (further detail is available in Annex 1):
Figure 45
269. The critical feature of the Internet value chain
is the fact that all but one of the activities are outside individual
nations' jurisdictional reach: content creation, content aggregation,
hosting, search and the consumer device (software and hardware)
are all global markets. These products and services are outside
the specific control of individual nations or even trading blocks.
As a consequence, national (UK) legislation or regulatory initiatives
cannot be expected to be an effective means of managing UK audiences'
access to media online—providers of content or social networking
services who don't want to comply with UK rules can easily operate
outside the UK.
270. Uniquely, providers of Internet access (ISPs[81])
are entirely within national jurisdiction: UK Internet access
providers are physically located in the UK, and therefore represent
the sole means through which it might be possible to control the
distribution of potentially harmful content in the UK; in other
words, to play the role which channels play in broadcasting.
271. However, regulation of Internet content via ISPs,
for the purposes of controlling national Internet content markets,
is an undesirable and inappropriate response to the risks of harmful
content. (As discussed in Annex 4, in a small number of nations,
including China, and Saudi Arabia, the Internet content market
is controlled through ISPs regulation).
The legal context: ISPs
272. The debate over the role of the ISP has already
been had at the EU and UK level in the context of the Electronic
Commerce Directive (the "Directive")[82]
as implemented in the UK in the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive)
Regulations 2002.[83]
This framework limits the liability of service providers who unwittingly
transmit or store unlawful content provided by others in certain
circumstances.
273. For our purposes, there are two critical categories
of service provider that are granted specific protections from
liability in relation to illegal content: those who transmit information
(ie "mere conduits"), and those engaged in "hosting"
information.
274. ISPs will typically have protected status under
the Directive because they are likely to be "mere conduits".[84]
Where they do not initiate the transmission of content, select
the receiver of the transmission, or select or modify the content
transmitted, they will not have legal responsibility even where
that content is unlawful. The Directive also prevents Member States,
including the UK, from imposing general obligations on such service
providers, to monitor the content they transmit or store.
275. The existence of a current legislative constraint
is not a sufficient reason to reject consideration of ISP regulation
in the future. However, Ofcom considers that ISP regulation is
unlikely to be an appropriate mechanism to control Internet content
markets for the following reasons:
276. Firstly, the basic role of the ISP is to carry digital
packets, not to manage content services, and so it does not make
sense to make them responsible for the content services which
the packets they carry make up. An ISP is in some ways like a
provider of traditional telephony—responsible for connecting
people or businesses, but not for the content of their conversations
or other communications.
277. More formally, ISPs are not direct economic participants
in the content markets which they enable: they are compensated
for carrying data packets, whether those packets will make up
an email, a television programme or some high-value financial
market information.
278. Requiring ISPs to take responsibility for controlling
adults' and minors' access to content and to distinguish between
content acceptable for adults, but potentially harmful to children,
would in effect transform an ISP into something much more like
the operator of a broadcast platform; ISPs would be incentivised
to carry content exclusively from recognised or approved providers.
This regulated platform would not be the open and innovative Internet
available today: if ISPs blocked unknown content they could prevent
the development of new products and services.
279. Finally, it is important to note that although no
legal duty applies, ISPs in the UK and many other regions already
make a significant contribution to the management both of illegal
and harmful content. The role that ISPs play today, and the extent
to which they might play a greater role, is discussed below.
The legal context: hosts
280. The UK and EU legal framework also protects those
providing Internet hosting services from liability for illegal
content in certain circumstances. Internet hosts are defined as
those who store third party information, and they have a partial
protection from liability—they are not liable for hosting
content which is illegal, until they have "actual knowledge"
of illegal activity or information. This protection from liability
ends when they do have actual knowledge, unless they act expeditiously
to remove or disable access. As with conduits, member states are
prohibited from imposing monitoring obligations on hosts.
281. These protections are important, because there is
a broad range of providers of hosting services: in particular,
user-generated content hosts like YouTube (and thousands of others)
are typically classified as hosts under the legislation and are
therefore protected in respect of illegal content liability, and
protected from the imposition of monitoring duties. Since hosts
are also part of the global market, any national initiative focusing
on the actions of hosting service providers would in any case
have limited impact on the totality of inappropriate content available
to children.
Self-regulation, self-organisation and consumer responsibility
282. If no individual institution or set of institutions
can be charged with responsibility for managing the risks posed
by potentially harmful content, what can be done? The answer is
that harmful content risks must be approached as a distributed
responsibility. Under this model everyone has a role to play,
but none is uniquely in a position to promise safety. Put another
way, the familiar assertion "You can't regulate the Internet"
is both true and misleading: the Internet can't be regulated like
broadcast television—if it could it wouldn't be the Internet
as we know it; but a wide range of actions can help limit the
exposure of adults and children to potentially harmful or illegal
content, even if there is no statutory regulation involved.
283. This important conclusion also raises some issues:
where there is distributed responsibility, individual players
in the content value chain may seek to evade individual duty,
even though each has an important role to play. Furthermore, it
is difficult to ensure that a system of distributed responsibility
is effective, because statutory duties will play a minimal role.
In other words, if the UK is necessarily limited in the extent
to which it could regulate global content producers, search providers,
Internet hosts etc; and if the regulation of ISPs is not an appropriate
solution either, the UK must rely to a greater extent on self-regulation
or self-organisation[85]
(respectively, through joint action by industry players or the
individual efforts of single businesses) to help secure the protection
of children. In fact this approach is recognised by the E-Commerce
Directive; there is a specific obligation on Member States and
the European Commission to encourage the drawing up of codes of
conduct, including in respect of the protection of minors and
human dignity.[86]
284. This has two important consequences: firstly, as
is typically the case when a self-regulatory model is adopted
to address a policy objective, a greater degree of responsibility
will rest with consumers; and secondly, that in considering actions
through which children's safety may be enhanced, it is necessary
to pay careful attention to the extent to which industry commercial
incentives are aligned with the interests of citizens and consumers.
Where incentives are not effectively aligned, either in terms
of individual incentives of a company or the collective incentive
of industry to support public commitments, then a self-regulatory
model is less likely to be effective. In examining the current
and future roles we can expect of industry, we therefore give
careful consideration to the extent to which corporate incentives
would be likely to support industry action, either by the most
significant individual players or by the majority.
285. Furthermore, it is important to recognise the extent
to which the regulated broadcast market also relies upon parents'
actions. Broadcast TV includes a great deal of potentially harmful
content; the system relies upon parents' awareness of the watershed,
and their ability to respond to on-air warnings, programme titles,
and to the context provided by channel brands to manage their
children's media experience. Harmful content on the Internet creates
new duties for parents, but their central role in protection is
characteristic of the more highly regulated TV environment.
286. As discussed in Annex 2, industry players across
the value chain already make important efforts to support people
in managing online risks effectively. There are some opportunities
where industry might contribute more to supporting children in
the online environment, which we describe below. However, some
of the most significant opportunities to mitigate harmful content
risks are through the development of children's and parents' awareness
of the risks, and their ability to manage those risks—not
though traditional regulatory interventions, which focus on changing
the behaviour of industry players through statutory direction.
287. In the following sections we examine the roles played
by industry, Government and regulators in the management of potentially
harmful but legal content; approaches taken to illegal content
and to cyberbullying; finally, we consider the significant role
which consumers can play in managing harmful content risks.
A value chain model for Internet content management
288. For the purposes of the analysis of online content
risks, it is most useful to think of three broad groups of industry
activity:
— content creation, aggregation and hosting are
the activities through which content is made available to the
global audience, and to UK citizens in particular; and
— Internet access, search, and the consumer device
(software and hardware) are the means through which the content
is accessed by those audiences.
Figure 46
THE INTERNET VALUE CHAIN: CONTROLLING AVAILABILITY AND
ACCESS TO CONTENT
289. In considering industry actions through which potentially
harmful content can be managed, there are two broad types of intervention:
those intended to affect the extent to which content is made available
on the Internet; and those intended to affect the extent to which
the content is accessible to (vulnerable) audiences.
290. UK initiatives intended to control the availability
of potentially harmful content will tend to be limited in their
impact to businesses which are within the UK's jurisdictional
reach. However, actions developed in collaboration with industry
can have a broader impact: corporate "good citizens"
outside the direct jurisdictional reach of the UK may still be
inclined to comply with UK standards, guidelines, codes of practice
etc, where these are also consistent with their businesses' successful
operation. While such initiatives may have an impact on the willing—on
corporate good citizens—there will always be other operators
who will not comply, from regions with different cultural values
and different laws.
291. Activity intended to control access to content can
potentially extend to services from anywhere, and can therefore
have broader impact. In considering how to manage content risks
we will examine the extent to which the availability of potentially
harmful content can be managed, and what opportunities exist to
secure greater protection, and then examine opportunities in relation
to controlling the accessibility of such content.
292. Although the current industry approaches to managing
harmful content are important, they must be considered as part
of an overall system which also includes adults, children and
their parents and children. The goal of the actions taken by industry
players is not to make it impossible for children for children
to access potentially harmful content—it is to reduce the
risks to children and to enable parents to manage and control
their children's access to content. This is similar to the position
in the more highly regulated broadcasting environment: regulatory
structures like the 9.00 pm watershed, or the PIN protection of
certain programmes cannot prevent children from seeing adult programmes,
but they reduce the risk and can enable parents to control their
childrens' access to potentially harmful content. Media literacy—and
specifically, the development of adults', parents' and childrens'
awareness and competences in relation to Internet content risks—is
discussed in the final section of this chapter.
6.2 The role of industry in managing risks from potentially
harmful content, including that on user-generated and social networking
sites
293. This section examines the roles that industry actors
can play in mitigating the risks from potentially harmful content
by helping to manage the accessibility and availability
of such content. As noted above, however, many of these actions
are part of a system which will involves action on the part of
adults and/or children. The risks associated with illegal content
are covered in section 6.2.
294. Content producers, aggregators and hosts all operate
in a global market, and the potential reach of UK initiatives
to manage access will necessarily be limited. Action at these
points in the value chain can nevertheless help mitigate the risks
from potentially harmful content, by helping to manage the availability
of harmful content, in four broad ways:
Figure 47
THE INTERNET VALUE CHAIN: MANAGING THE AVAILABILITY AND
ACCESSIBILITY OF CONTENT
>
295. Content classification and labelling: providers
can offer information about the characteristics of their content
to inform audiences about the nature of the content. Users can
refer to this information directly—as is the case with labelling
systems like the BBFC movie ratings, or the PEGI video games ratings
systems—or indirectly via filtering and search and navigation
tools which refer to labels to identify content unsuitable for
children.
296. Age verification: content providers can restrict
access to content inappropriate for children through the use of
tools to establish users' age. A credit card number is the most
widely used age-verification tool.
297. UGC Community Standards: The emergence of online
communities is a central feature of the Internet content environment;
user-generated content hosting sites, such as YouTube or DailyMotion,
social networking sites (SNS) and peer-to-peer (P2P) communities
all allow individual audience members to upload and to share content
with other members of the community (though in the case of P2P
communities this is often copyright content). These sites cannot
rely on the top-down forms of content management because their
users determine what the site comprises: they are hosts, as defined
above. However, communities typically have "site standards"
which define the types of content users are encouraged to share;
and the categories of content that are forbidden. Many of these
sites operate community-led review processes to ensure that content
on the site fits the site standards: users can complain about
individual content assets, and the site operator commits to reviewing
the content and remove it in the event that it does breach standards.
Annex 2 includes more details of such sites and review processes.
298. Advertising content controls: These present an indirect
means for addressing potentially harmful content. For the most
part, content which is made freely available online relies on
advertising funding; through codes of conduct, and other means,
advertising flows to the providers of harmful content can be restricted.
In the UK, the Internet Advertising Sales House (IASH) code of
practice defines types of websites prohibited for its members'
adverts, as well as websites where IASH members need to seek permission
from the client before placing an advert. Other controls include
codes of conduct set by affiliate networks and restrictions placed
by Google AdSense (described in Annex 1).
Content classification, labelling and tagging
299. In general, content providers are in a position
to classify their content—to decide whether it is for children
or adults; is funny or frightening; is a cartoon or reality footage,
etc. Content providers can attach information "labels"
to classify their content. Furthermore, a content provider has
strong incentives to provide accurate information about the characteristics
of the content they are offering, whether it is a website or an
individual piece of content. It is this information which enables
interested audiences to find content: and unless a user knows
something about what to expect, there is no reason to look at
a given piece of content. In principle, we should expect all content
to have some kind of label or content information. However, there
is a significant gap in the application of standardised labels
like the ICRA framework or the RTA label, which can be used to
manage or control access to specific types of website.[87],
[88]
300. Despite the easy availability of such frameworks,
the application of standardised labelling remains negligible.
Most importantly, this is because the incentives to adopt standardised
labelling tools for content producers are generally low (unless
producers are required to do this as part of commercial agreements).
This is, in part, because standardised labelling tools are not
widely used for content filtering—reinforcing the lack of
incentive for providers.
301. According to the expert panel report evaluating
the activities of the EU Safer Internet Action Plan in
2003-04, there is a general reluctance among Internet content
producers to apply labels, especially for use in blocking lists.
The report concluded that "voluntary self-labelling cannot
provide a solution to tackle the problem of unlabelled web pages,
except if labelling becomes compulsory".
302. In practice, creating a statutory duty requiring
content providers to label for the purposes of content filtering
would be ineffective—it would be impossible to enforce for
non-UK sites, and impractical in relation to the thousands of
UK individuals who make their own Internet content available.
In particular, it would create a duty and potentially a liability
for UK citizens and content businesses, while allowing providers
of potentially harmful content, such as pornography, easily to
evade the requirement, by operating outside the UK.
303. Although a general requirement for labelling for
the purposes of content control may be impractical, there is a
role for labelling frameworks in content sub-markets for commercially-produced
video (such as TV programmes) and films, especially those which
are potentially harmful.
Further action suggested to the Byron Review
There are two policy initiatives currently under way in the
UK which could enhance the breadth and effectiveness of content
labelling in relation to commercially produced audio-visual content.
In our evidence to the Byron Review we suggested that it considers
promoting and supporting the efforts described below to improve
the quality of content information in relation to audiovisual
media.
— The Broadband Stakeholder Group, supported
by Ofcom and key industry players, is developing a common framework
for the ways in which viewers should be informed about commercially
produced audiovisual content that is potentially harmful or offensive.
These common principles, once agreed by industry, will form the
basis of good practice in enabling viewers to protect themselves
and their children from exposure to such content.
— Looking forward, the new Audiovisual Media
Services Directive requires the UK to create a new regulatory
framework for on-demand television service providers, including
those operating on the Internet. The UK is in the early stages
of developing this model; however, effective and consistently
applied content information is likely to be a significant element
of the framework, along with other measures to control children's
access to harmful content familiar from broadcast markets—such
as PIN controls.
304. Critically, these initiatives focus on behaviour
which is aligned with the interests of industry players. Mainstream
content providers will benefit from being able to provide their
audiences with a predictable, managed content experience. Application
of these frameworks can rely on a UK self-regulatory framework
(or co-regulatory, where required under the AVMS Directive). Some
operators may wish to avoid such a framework—however, adoption
of a stricter statutory model would have limited impact, as non-compliant
operators are free to base themselves outside the UK.
305. There is a further means through which content labelling
and classification can contribute to the management of harmful
content of all kinds: through the operation of audience participation
in classification.
306. Content classification by members of online communities
of interest is an important part of the process for managing potentially
harmful content in community environments. In practice, a user
posting material onto a user-generated content site can be presented
with a range of means to label their content. The user will always
be able to add "tags", to which other users can refer
in order to inform their content choices; in some instances they
can add standard labels—categorising content as entertainment
or music; or indicating that content is inappropriate for children.
307. More broadly, members of the audience can themselves
label content in certain environments. In relation to potentially
harmful content, audiences can work with providers of filtering
services, alerting them to instances of incorrectly classified
content (over-blocked or under-blocked). This option is discussed
below in the subsection on filtering.
308. In the longer term, members of the UK and global
audience represent the most significant resource in developing
effective, accurate and usable content information. Services like
the photo-sharing site Flickr derive their value in substantial
part from the actions of users in "tagging" content
with labels—ensuring that other users can find exactly what
they are looking for. The more widely the Internet audience takes
responsibility for sharing information in this way about content
which is good or harmful, or which is relevant to specific audience
groups, the easier it will become for individuals to find the
content they want, and to protect themselves and others from the
content they wish to avoid.
UGC community standards
309. There has been considerable media and political
attention paid to the availability in online communities of potentially
harmful content; particular attention is focused on the availability
of content on YouTube which is:
— appropriate for adults but not for children, and
— content which is legal but which depicts dangerous
or illegal activity and which may therefore encourage illegal
behaviour, such as fighting among children (and happy slapping),
footage of gangs and guns.
310. It is important to note that the specific attention
paid to YouTube, and to other market-leading providers of UGC
hosting like MySpace, is based not on the fact of their providing
UGC hosting services, but on their market-leadership position
and the fact that they offer a general use proposition: they are
targeted at adults and (older) children. Public concern does not
seem to be directed at the large numbers of UGC-hosting services
whose stated objective is to enable communities to share pornography
(YouPorn.com, PornoTube.com), violent content (Extremevideos.org;
Almostkillled.com), whose content clearly creates a risk of harm
for children, or illegal copyright content (thepiratebay.org;
and the recently closed Demonoid.com).
311. YouTube, and the other major UGC hosts, typically
operate two mechanisms through which children's access to potentially
harmful content can be controlled: a form of age verification,
discussed below; and community standards processes—under
which:
— the site defines a standards framework—for
example, YouTube includes the guideline "YouTube is not for
pornography or sexually explicit content". In contrast, Pornotube
requires only that content posted is legal in the US;
— users of the services can flag videos—indicating
that they believe a specific video does not comply with an aspect
of the community standards framework, and
— the service operator will review the item against
its community standards framework, and, if it agrees with the
user's judgement, it will remove the video from the site. In some
instances respected members of the community are also empowered
to review and remove content which is of concern.
312. In principle, these systems should ensure that content
is compliant with the site's terms of use—though for some
services these will of course include or encourage the posting
of potentially harmful content. There is nothing that can be done
to address the availability of such adult-targeted (potentially
harmful but legal) services operating from outside the UK. The
accessibility of such services to children can be addressed through
the use of filtering solutions, discussed below.
313. However, there remains a real distinction between
mainstream hosting providers and harmful content communities,
which is that mainstream services are intended for the use of
children as well as adults: and this is reflected in the top 10
ranking among children of these types of service.[89]
314. Many commentators believe that the review processes
on mainstream sites are ineffective, and that they allow content
which contravenes guidelines to remain available; and there is
anecdotal evidence supporting this hypothesis. It is, unsurprisingly,
possible to find content on mainstream sites like YouTube which
might appear to be inconsistent with site standards. (Access to
content which is assessed as consistent with site standards, but
intended for adults only, is controlled through a limited form
of age verification, discussed below).
315. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine empirically
how effective site review processes actually are. Major UGC sites
often operate sophisticated review processes: YouTube offers multiple
categories under which content can be flagged (including sexual
or violent content; and subcategories, like "physical attack"
or "minors fighting"); and allows an escalation process
in the event that a complainant is unsatisfied, but there is no
transparency over the operation of the process. Although YouTube,
for example, commits to reviewing all flagged content within 48
hours, the process remains opaque to the public. Furthermore,
because it is impossible to determine what proportion of content
is potentially harmful, there is no means to assess the overall
effectiveness of the system. In the absence of transparency, and
given the evidence of individual instances of potentially harmful
content, the continued expressions of concern among policymakers
and others are understandable.
316. It is important to distinguish between the distinct
types of content which might create such concerns: content which
is illegal in the UK; content which is potentially inconsistent
with site standards; and content which is legal but may only be
appropriate for adults. Illegal content is considered below.
317. In relation to content which is legal in the UK,
the UK does not possess any powers which would enable it to require
non-UK UGC hosts to adopt different content standards or a different
content review process to that which currently exists. The E-Commerce
Directive imposes an obligation on Member States and the Commission
to encourage voluntary codes of conduct regarding the protection
of minors and human dignity. The self-organisation scheme which
YouTube already operates is clearly intended to ensure that the
site's content is consistent with the content standards it defines.
318. What remains unclear is what relationship exists
between the self-organisation scheme principles and the specific
timetable commitments YouTube makes to community members, and
the actual operation of the scheme.
Further action suggested to the Byron Review:
In our evidence to the Byron Review Ofcom suggested that it
considers working with industry to create a voluntary scheme or
code under which UGC providers make transparent the operation
of their content review processes—for example, reporting
on the turnaround times for these processes, on the timetable
(if any) for communicating with complainants, and ideally, with
independent verification of performance.
This type of scheme could mirror the commitment concerning
its complaints handling process made by Facebook to the New York
Attorney General: to determine its response to any complaints
about sexually explicit content within 72 hours of receiving the
complaint.
319. It is not wholly clear what the architecture of
incentives is, in relation to this idea. Facebook's commitments
emerged from direct intervention by the Attorney General, as opposed
to pressure from audiences. Successful mainstream UGC hosts would
argue that their sustained growth, and popularity across all population
groups, is good evidence that their current approaches to content
control are effective, and that audiences' interest in greater
transparency is limited. However, to the extent that greater transparency
about the sites' content review processes may reassure some users
(parents in particular), it should contribute to the services'
overall appeal rather than diminishing it. Nonetheless, this initiative
will rely on industry willingness, and on evidence that this is
something audiences really want.
Age verification
320. Age verification has two distinct forms: schemes
intended to create secure identities for children to manage access
to, for example, child-targeted forums and messaging services;
and those intended to verify adulthood, as a means of preventing
children from accessing potentially harmful content. In this context
we are concerned with the second type of age verification—that
used to control access to adult content.
321. Age verification is a tool that promises to be
useful in controlling children's access to adult (harmful) content,
but which in practice faces very significant challenges. There
are three main reasons for this: the near-impossibility of truly
secure verification, the cost of good verification and jurisdictional
limits.
322. Firstly, it is very difficult to confirm age securely
without some physical link between the website operator and the
individual. For this reason, the German age verification process,
giving access to regulated providers of pornography, involves
visiting a Post Office or the use of a live webcam to demonstrate
identity, or the physical receipt of a personal ID USB-chip. Without
such measures, it is possible to refer to publicly available identity
data, such as electoral rolls; or to use credit card numbers.
However, all these measures are subject to significant leakage.
In particular, while credit cards are unavailable to minors, debit
and pre-paid cards are available to, and used by, those under
18.
323. In its analysis of the Child Online Privacy Protection
Act, the US Federal Trade Commission noted that "current
technology does not provide a practical means to prevent determined
children from falsifying their age online [. . .] age verification
technologies have not kept pace with other developments".[90]
324. Even though such measures can contribute to the
control of harmful content, they tend to be expensive, both for
the individuals concerned and/or for the content provider using
the service. For example, online safety expert Parry Aftab of
Wired Safety noted that "The cost of obtaining verifiable
parental consent for interactive communications is very high,
estimated at more than $45 per child".[91]
325. Finally, age verification is inevitably limited
by the reach of a national scheme: pornography providers to Germans
must operate with the age verification process described above,
unless they operate from anywhere outside Germany. Anecdotally,
the introduction of this regulatory requirement resulted in a
significant majority of German pornography providers moving their
operations out of the country.
326. Given these issues, pursuing "secure"
age verification access to harmful content is almost without doubt
a very challenging task. Nonetheless, the use of credit card data
and other lower-cost means to verify age can help control the
availability of potentially harmful content.
Further action suggested to the Byron Review:
Although age verification has the potential to contribute
to the management of risks to children, practical hurdles, including
implementation and cost, will inevitably limit its impact. Nonetheless,
Ofcom recommended to the Byron Reviw team that it encourages the
use of age verification to restrict access to harmful content.
Age confirmation
327. The form of age verification used on many websites
which feature potentially harmful content—including UGC,
social networking and a significant proportion of US-based pornography
sites—are essentially insecure. These sites simply require
that users enter their date of birth, with no external verification
of the user's claim. They will not prevent children who are seeking
harmful content from finding it. However, children who are aware
of the reasons these tools are in place can nonetheless use them
to manage their content experience and avoid harmful content.
Strictly speaking, this is more in the nature of a content classification
and labelling initiative, than age verification. A set of content
is classified as inappropriate for children, and children can
use an age confirmation tool of this type to avoid exposure to
such content.
Further action suggested to the Byron Review
Ofcom recommended to the Byron Review that it encourages the
use of such age confirmation tools by all providers of
potentially harmful content, even though they are insecure.
To be effective this would also require parents and children
to be aware of the valuable role that such age confirmation
tools can play in helping prevent exposure to inappropriate
or harmful content, and for parents to ensure that children make
use of them. This should be a part of the general media literacy
programme discussed below.
UGC community standards, guns, gangs and happy slapping
328. Significant media attention has focused on the practice
of "happy slapping"—essentially filming an assault,
typically using a phone camera, and then sharing the film, either
among friends, or among a wider audience by posting the content
onto a UGC hosting site; related concerns cover, for example,
footage of illegal acts, such as driving dangerously or displaying
what appear to be real handguns. Excessively violent content should
be managed as part of a mainstream UGC site's standard terms and
conditions; however, these types of content are believed to create
a particular risk because the content may normalise or encourage
dangerous behaviour and may therefore create risks for adults
as well as children. In some cases the content will also be consistent
with site standards (eg footage of dangerous driving may be acceptable).
329. Although it appears to depict illegal acts, publication
of such content is not illegal under current UK legislation. It
would be very difficult to make such content illegal, as illegal
acts, including the display or use of guns, dangerous driving,
fighting etc, are a persistent feature of films and television
programming, both in drama and in documentaries and news. Although
the material posted on sites looks real, the distinction between
fiction and fact does not generally play a part in obscenity legislation:
obscene content is obscene whether it is simulated or depicts
real activity. It would be practically impossible to operate a
legal or regulatory framework in which "real" footage
was illegal and fiction was legal—and even if possible,
this would in any case compromise news and documentary programming.
330. The additional issue raised by such content is not
one of controlling content and managing content risks, which should
be captured through the operation of the site's terms of use,
as described above. The challenge is to improve communication
between UGC providers and the criminal justice system so when
problems are reported they can be addressed. Ofcom has not undertaken
research into the effectiveness of such communication, though
concerns have been voiced on both industry and criminal justice
sides that collaboration could be more effective.
Social networking sites' community standards
331. There is a blurred boundary between sites which
enable social networking, and user-generated content (UGC) services
which allow users to share their own content. Some popular social
networking sites, for example MySpace, have UGC sharing as a core
element of their proposition. Other UGC sites, notably YouTube,
are more clearly focused on enabling content sharing and less
on the community-forming aspects of social networking sites.
332. Alongside their popularity, it is also clear that
social networking sites create a specific risk of harm: they will
inevitably do so, in as much as their fundamental characteristic
is to enable individuals to share personal information of one
kind or another with others. Much of the information shared may
be harmless—for example, an individual's favourite music
or films—but some is not. The principal ways in which social
networking sites create risks for their consumers are:
— Personal identity information, (name, address,
dates of birth etc.) being made more widely available than users
intend. This can create risks of identity theft, or in the case
of vulnerable individuals, can expose them to exploitation—for
example children being exposed to contact with predatory paedophiles.
— Personal content, such as photographs or diary
entries being made more widely available than users expect or
intend. This can be embarrassing or even harmful in certain circumstances;
stories about employers refusing job applicants, or dismissing
staff, on the basis of information on individual's SNS profiles
are widespread.
333. The existing UK legislation relating to the protection
of personal data, the Data Protection Act 1998 (the "DPA"),
places strict controls on the extent to which service providers
can collect and exploit personal data. The Information Commissioners
Office (the "ICO") is responsible for the protection
of personal information in the UK, and enforces the requirements
of the DPA as well as providing advice and guidance to businesses
about their responsibilities, and consumers about their rights,
in relation to personal data.
334. The central requirements of the legislation are
that businesses which collect and use personal data must do so:
— fairly and lawfully, and for limited purposes;
— the information collected must be adequate, relevant
and not excessive; accurate and up to date; not kept for longer
than is necessary;
— it must be held securely, and
— it must be managed and used in line with consumers'
rights, such as the right for individuals to have access to the
information held; to correct inaccurate information; and that
information should be used only for the purposes it was collected
for.
335. The ICO also has legal powers to ensure that organisations
comply with the requirements of the Privacy and Electronic Communications
Regulations 2003 which set out rules for people who wish to send
electronic direct marketing, for example, email and text messages.[92]
336. Website operators who are collecting personal data
must therefore ensure that their users are aware of the following:
— who is collecting the information;
— what it will be used for; and
— the other institutions or individuals to whom
it will be made available.
337. The privacy policies for leading SNS are set out
in Annex 2. This brief survey of the leading social networking
sites suggests a high degree of awareness of, and efforts to address,
privacy concerns. In each case, the service providers seek to
define clearly what types of information can and should be shared,
the extent to which the information provided will be made accessible,
and to whom, and the extent of users' control over the accessibility
and persistence of their social network identities. All of the
leading services specify that their users should be older than
13/14 (see comments above about age verification).
338. Ofcom has not examined the extent to which individual
social networking sites comply with the specific requirements
of the DPA and related legislation, nor have we considered compliance
with UK or international legislation relating to the management
of personal information. Our examination of the issue focuses
on the extent to which users are aware of the implications of
what they do when they use social networking services—whether
they understand the privacy policies of the services they use;
and whether they are able to use the tools provided by operators
to manage their personal data as they would wish.
339. Ofcom's analysis of this question in Annex 5B suggests
that some adults are failing to manage their personal information
appropriately, and that there are, therefore, material risks arising
from their use of SNS. There is a substantial media literacy need
in relation to the use of social networking sites for adults,
children and their parents; as a part of the overall delivery
of media literacy outcomes set out below, Ofcom believes that
competences in relation to the management of personal data are
a significant priority.
340. As for other content risks, there is a role for
industry, focused around enabling consumers to take effective
control of the risks they face. It is clear that, at least among
the leading providers, there is already a material commitment
to helping people manage privacy risks, through the provision
of privacy policies and tools, safety advice and mechanisms to
enable users to report concerns.
Furthermore, under pressure, largely from US Attorneys-General,
individual providers such as Facebook and MySpace have committed
to mitigating further the risks of harm to their users, through
investment in technology to improve the reliability of tools used
to identify under-age users, and further restrict the inappropriate
use of SNS by adults to make contact with vulnerable children.
341. However, Ofcom's research in this area has suggested
that some of the SNS providers' privacy controls and support information
still leave some audiences confused about what they are doing,
and how widely they are sharing information; anecdotal evidence
suggests that it is not as easy as it should be to delete SNS
profiles on some sites.
342. These risks therefore need continued attention from
service providers. The Home Office Task Force on Child Protection
on the Internet has been developing good practice guidelines for
SNS providers, in close collaboration with industry, over the
past year. Compliance with these guidelines should help ensure
that SNS providers give appropriate support and protection to
their users. The project has involved all the leading providers
of SNS to UK audiences. We keenly anticipate the publication of
these guidelines and their widespread adoption by the industry
in the UK and internationally. Looking forward, Ofcom expects
to see continued improvements in the clarity and quality of privacy
information and profile management.
Advertising content controls
343. Content which is made freely available online relies
on advertising funding. Many of the institutions responsible for
placing advertising make significant efforts to ensure that advertising,
and the associated revenue, is channelled to appropriate content
sites. It is not possible to determine the extent to which advertising
revenue is unwittingly directed to harmful content providers.
Nonetheless, the current systems are not perfect, as a result
of a number of factors:
— Some industry sources have suggested that there
is insufficient awareness among advertisers and agencies of the
potential for advertisements and money to flow through to potentially
harmful or inappropriate content sites.
— Some advertisers are indifferent as to the contexts
in which their advertising is placed, though these are typically
marginal brands, and account for a limited proportion of the total
banner market.
— Management of the networks through which advertising
reaches sites is a complex task. Network and affiliate network
operators and providers are not always able to maintain complete
control over the portfolios of sites to which their content flows,
despite continued investment. Mainstream operators are, however,
strongly incentivised to do so by the damage to their businesses
caused when problems emerge.
— In the UK, the Internet Advertising Sales House
(IASH) code of practice defines types of websites prohibited for
its members' adverts, such as those featuring guns or obscene
content, as well as websites where IASH members need to seek permission
from the client before placing an advert, such as adult content
or P2P sites. However, IASH membership currently excludes some
of the leading advertising network operators. The reasons for
this are hard to discern, although they do not appear to result
from the lack of desire by network operators to provide controlled
placement of advertising.
Further action suggested to the Byron Review
Ofcom recommended that the Byron Review team explores, with
the online advertising industry, ways to reduce further
the extent to which mainstream UK online advertising is placed
around harmful content. Initiative might include:
— encouraging greater take up of the IASH Code
(or a similar framework) so that it covers a much greater proportion
of UK online advertising sales; and
— information/education initiatives directed
at improving awareness among advertisers and agencies of the means
by which online advertising can be made more secure.
Controlling accessibility
344. There is a single technical means of controlling
individuals' access to content: through the use of content filtering
tools. A full description of filtering is included in Annex 2;
in brief, however, content filters provide managed access to the
Internet by classifying content, and enabling different classes
of content to be blocked. Filters can operate at a number of points
in the access chain: at the network (ISP) layer; in the provision
of search engine results; and on the PC (the consumer device).
Figure 48
THE INTERNET VALUE CHAIN: CONTROLLING ACCESS TO CONTENT
345. Typical filter classification categories include:
sexual activity, nudity, violence, drug use and gambling. The
threshold of acceptability or harmfulness for content varies according
to the ages of children and their families' cultural backgrounds.
To reflect this, filtering solutions are designed to be flexible
and enable specific control of the types of content that should
be blocked. Many filtering tools allow control on the basis of
child age ranges, rather than in relation to the specific categories
of potentially harmful content. For example, AOL's parental control
tool distinguishes between three child categories—under-12s;
young teens (13-15); and mature teens (16-17).
346. There is a wide variety of filtering tools available,
and they are becoming increasingly sophisticated. In principle,
it should be possible for Internet filtering tools to play a key
role in resolving the concerns of parents over the risks of harmful
content. However, the use of filtering tools in the UK is partial:
around half of all parents use filters to manage their children's
Internet access. To the extent that filtering seems to promise
significant benefits, we must consider what hurdles exist to their
wider adoption by parents.
347. Firstly, filters require parents to install and
configure them. Although the providers of such software have an
incentive to make the filtering products easy to use, it is still
often a complex task. Among other things, parents who have children
of different ages are required to create and configure distinct
identities on a home PC, in order that both older and younger
children have the right controls in place.
348. Despite the improvements in the sophistication of
filtering products, they are perhaps most effective for younger
children. For the youngest children—perhaps under 6—the
simplest "pass list" filter may be appropriate. This
will restrict access other than to a defined shortlist of child-appropriate
websites—so there is no risk of under-blocking; and the
fact that children will be unable to access a broad range of content
which might be appropriate for them is arguably a lesser concern.
349. For older children, filtering tools typically rely
on a combination of a blocking list—a defined of undesirable
sites—and automatic decision-making about unclassified sites,
using keywords, phrases and other indicators such as the type
of language in use and the text-to-image ratio, and any available
content labels and metadata. Although such tools are all subject
to a degree of over- and under-blocking, an EU testing project
in 2006 found that "filtering tools are generally capable
of filtering potentially harmful content without seriously degrading
the Internet experience of the youngsters". However, as children
approach and enter their teens, they are increasingly likely to
encounter blocked content which they wish to access, and which
in some instances may be inappropriate. In practice, parents of
older children may face repeated requests that filters be removed
in order to access specific pieces of content.
350. Finally, as has been demonstrated by the experience
of the Australian Government in relation to its publicly-funded,
freely available filtering products, teenagers are often very
sophisticated computer users—with competences well beyond
those of most parents. Shortly after the free filtering software
packages were released in Australia, there were widely reported
stories of teenage experts breaking the filter; and once a tool
has been cracked the relevant techniques quickly become available
to all interested users. Although there will continue to be advances
in the security of such products, this threat will limit the usefulness
of filtering products for older children.
351. Nonetheless, filtering products are an essential
tool in managing access to harmful content, particularly for younger
children. The question is how to encourage their more widespread
adoption.
ISPs and filtering
352. The leading consumer ISPs, which account for over
90% of UK Internet subscriptions, all offer filtering products
as part of their Internet access proposition; and the majority
of UK broadband subscriptions come with a free filtering solution.
However, the provision of information about filtering, and support
for parents in their use of the tools provided, does not appear
to be as effective as it might be. Although ISPs do invest in
filtering tools, and in support, the incentives they face are
somewhat mixed: a message that Internet access presents a significant
risk of harm is not easily reconciled with the effective marketing
of Internet access.
353. More generally, the dominant characteristics on
which Internet access is marketed are bandwidth and price: value-added
characteristics such as filtering or security support are used
less to distinguish between service providers. For example, AOL's
Internet access business, a core element of whose consumer proposition
earlier in the decade was the promise of parental control, was
sold to Carphone Warehouse in 2007. Although the AOL access proposition
still includes parental controls, the current marketing communications
focus on price and speed—with some packages also including
the offer of a free laptop.
Further action suggested to the Byron Review
Ofcom recommended that the Byron team explores with ISPs and
ISPA, their trade association, the development of a code of practice
for family-friendly Internet access, with relevant characteristics
including the provisions of tools, information and support—for
example in relation to parental controls for content filtering,
and Internet security (firewalls, spam-blocking tools). This code
might also create a "trustmark" or brand for family-friendly
services, like those developed in France and Australia by ISPs
and service providers.
Information and awareness initiatives could improve parental
awareness of the potential benefits of such services and of the
trustmark. This could help to create incentives for interested
ISPs to focus greater attention on creating differentiated family-friendly
access propositions.
Filter usability and relevance
354. In a number of other countries, there have been
national schemes to encourage the adoption of filtering; along
with information or educational initiatives, there are programmes
to test filtering products for features including general usability,
over- and under-blocking, presence of age-based filtering and
content-category based options. In the UK, Ofcom has been working
with the Home Office and industry to develop a BSI standard for
filtering products, which will allow qualifying products to carry
a Kitemark.
Further action suggested to the Byron Review
Ofcom recommended that, alongside other media literacy initiatives,
the Byron team considers promoting awareness of Kitemarked filtering
products' benefits, and encouraging their wider adoption.
Filtering and complaints
355. One concern widely expressed about commercial filtering
products is that they are relatively undifferentiated across countries:
certainly the market for English-language products is dominated
by US providers, which will mean that blocking and pass lists
may fail to take account of specific UK cultural concerns; or
of valuable or harmful local content.
356. In order to address such concerns, a number of regions
operate a centralised register of illegal content, to be used
by filtering and blocking tools. The most widespread form of this
is the creation of blocking lists: for example, the UK and Sweden
have centrally maintained lists of sites featuring child abuse
images, which are used (voluntarily) by ISPs to block access.
These lists are complaints-led: consumers who find potentially
illegal content report their concerns, and after professional
review illegal sites are added to the list. In Australia, the
AMCA runs a similar scheme with a slightly broader remit—it
includes child pornography; bestiality; excessive violence or
sexual violence; detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug
use; and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.
The blocking list is incorporated into the range of Government-approved
filtering solutions.
357. Similarly, the network-layer blocking systems operated
in Saudi Arabia refer to a list run by the Communications and
Information Technology Commission—which is open to online
complaints, both about illegal content or about blocked sites
which users believe should be made available.
358. The creation of a centralised register of potentially
harmful content would be a Sisyphean task—the resources
required to develop a list sufficiently comprehensive to have
impact would be considerable, and would inevitably trail behind
the proliferating availability of such material. However, UK Internet
audiences represent a valuable resource, whose contribution could
help with the development of more effective UK-centric filtering
products.
Further action suggested to the Byron Review
As well as promoting the use of filtering products, Ofcom
recommended that the Byron team explores way of encouraging parents
to be active users of such products, reporting instances of under-
and over-blocking to their software providers. Over time, this
information will help the development of products which better
reflect the specific concerns and content standards of UK parents.
Network and local filtering
359. Content filters can be applied at two points: at
the network layer, by the ISP; and on the consumer device—the
PC. In the UK, and in most of the rest of the world, consumer
filtering is used at the PC rather than at the network layer,
although the AOL Internet access service incorporates network
layer filtering.
360. One policy response to the limited adoption of filtering
products by parents in the home, and given the issues identified
above, is to propose the introduction of network layer filtering.
However, this proposal does not offer significant advantages over
filtering on consumer PCs—and raises some significant additional
problems.
361. Firstly, the same practical hurdles exist in relation
to network filtering as to PC filtering—parents would still
need to configure the filtering software to reflect their specific
concerns and the different ages of their children. Furthermore,
enabling discrete filtering options would, for most ISPs, entail
a very significant investment in enabling multiple identities
at the ISP for those families who wished to have filtered and
unfiltered access. Finally, network-layer filtering places material
costs on ISPs, and can lead to problems with network performance
and connection speeds.[93]
362. For these reasons, outside states which have strong
centralised policies in relation to the management of Internet
content, like China and Saudi Arabia, there has been very limited
consideration of network layer filtering. In Australia, where
plans to implement free network-layer filtering were announced
by the Government in 2006, network layer filtering currently plays
a limited role. An initial feasibility study carried out in 2006
found that network layer controls reduced performance significantly,
especially for larger ISPs. The approach may nonetheless be implemented,
following feasibility research and input from a trial of ISP filtering
currently taking place in Tasmania, but future developments remain
uncertain.
Mobile Internet access and filtering
363. The use of mobile devices to access Internet content
presents some additional challenges and opportunities for the
management of harmful content risks. The challenges emerge because
the market for filtering solutions which can be installed and
run locally on mobile devices is undeveloped, and mobile phones
are used by children without parental supervision.
364. However, mobile networks and devices are, at least
at present, a much more appropriate platform for network filtering:
the devices are owned by individuals, so complex configuration
for multiple users is not necessary; the range of services accessed
is narrower; and the volume of Internet data traffic is much lower
than for fixed Internet connectivity.
365. In the UK all the mobile network operators comply
with a joint industry code of practice which requires access controls
for the operators' own content portals; and requires that they
offer network-layer filtering for the Internet. For both of these
services, the account-holder can specify whether or not the phone
should allow access to content for adults (18-rated content).
No comprehensive evidence exists as to the levels of application
and effectiveness of this code of practice. Ofcom, in partnership
with the Home Office and the Children's Charities Coalition on
Internet Safety, have begun an audit which will result in the
publication of a review with recommendations in 2008.
366. In France, at least one network operator has committed
to providing a further level of support for parents: as well as
offering the under-18 class of network filtering, they propose
to allow parents to also specify a "child profile" (under
12), further limiting the range of content accessible.
Further action suggested to the Byron Review
Ofcom recommended that the Byron Review considers encouraging
the mobile network operators to extend their commitment to network
filtering, and allowing parent to specify a child-friendly filtering
option analogous to that possible within most PC filtering tools.
6.3 Controlling illegal content
367. The first challenge that an individual nation faces
in relation to controlling the availability of illegal content
is common to problems with harmful content: the Internet is a
global and potentially anonymous platform for the publication
of content, while an individual nation's ability to manage access
to content it deems illegal is constrained by the limits of its
jurisdiction.
368. However, controlling illegal content should present
fewer challenges than controlling legal but potentially harmful
content, because the goal is less complex: in relation to illegal
content, the objective is to prevent distribution, while for legal
but potentially harmful content, the aim is to restrict availability
for a subset of the population—children—without compromising
freedom of expression for adults. However, the difficulties of
dealing with a global platform remain.
Figure 49
THE INTERNET VALUE CHAIN: CONTROLLING ILLEGAL CONTENT
369. In the UK, there is a co-regulatory framework which
seeks to control illegal online content. Control of illegal content
in the UK is secured via a partnership between police, government
and the industry, involving a number of organisations, and described
in detail in Annex 2. A summary of the key elements is provided
below.
370. The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) plays
a central role. The IWF is a regulatory body set up in 1996 following
an agreement between government, the police and the UK online
industry. Its key objective is to minimise the availability of
potentially illegal Internet content, specifically:
— child sexual abuse images hosted anywhere in the
world;
— criminally obscene content hosted in the UK, and
— incitement to racial hatred content hosted in
the UK.
371. The IWF acts as a hotline for reporting illegal
and obscene content on the Internet. When an individual finds
content they believe to be illegal or obscene, they can report
it to the IWF (ISPs also pass on relevant complainants or complaints
which they receive). The IWF reviews the content against UK law
for the categories listed above.
372. If the content is hosted in the UK, the IWF issues
a take-down notice to the content host, which will remove the
content; if the content is hosted outside the UK, the IWF will
inform the relevant authorities, and add the website to its database
of IP addresses hosting illegal content.
373. This database of IP addresses hosting illegal content
is used to enable network-layer filtering of illegal content by
the UK ISPs. The database is regularly updated and contains between
800 and 1200 live illegal content URLs at any one time.
374. According to the Internet Services Providers Association
(ISPA), all major ISPs, and most smaller ones, use the database
to block access to the sites listed in it. This means that the
vast majority of consumer Internet connections are protected against
accessing illegal content listed in the database. In 2006, the
Government set a target that all consumer ISPs in the UK should
use the IWF database to block UK subscribers' access to identified
illegal content.
Figure 50
THE IWF PROCESS FOR HANDLING REPORTS OF ILLEGAL CONTENT
375. The broad approach to controlling illegal content
therefore comprises two elements:
— an institution or institutions to collect and
review complaints about illegal material and create a database
of illegal content addresses, and
— an agreed process for the use of this database
to control access to illegal content.
376. This broad approach is replicated in a number of
regions across the world, though it is notable that its implementation
in the UK (and in Sweden) looks particularly effective. In contrast,
in Germany a content blacklist is created by a combination of
Government agencies and self-regulatory authorities including
the Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien
(BPjM) and the self-regulatory body Freiwilligen Selbstkontrolle
Multimedia (FSM). In the event that illegal content hosted in
Germany is identified, the hosts are issued with a notice requiring
them to remove it. The blacklist of internationally hosted content
is issued to search providers in Germany (most importantly Google,
which has a market share in excess of 90%), which are members
of the FSM self-regulatory body. As a member of the FSM, Google,
for example, will not provide links to content on the backlist
to users of the German-facing service Google.de. However, German
Internet users will still be able to access illegal content if
they know the relevant content address—something which is
not possible in the UK where blacklisted addresses are blocked
by ISPs.
377. Similarly, in Australia, the ACMA runs a hotline
and creates a database of illegal content hosted internationally,
which is provided to ISPs and to the providers of filtering tools;
as far as we can determine, the list is only used at present within
filtering tools controlled by consumers. Individuals who choose
not to use such tools are therefore potentially able to access
illegal content which has been identified and blacklisted.
378. Ofcom believes that the current UK model is the
most appropriate and effective means to address the problems of
illegal content through the actions of relevant players in the
Internet market. However, it also requires that consumers play
their part, in reporting the illegal content they encounter—Ofcom
research indicates that awareness of the IWF is lower than it
might be. This suggests that, as in relation to personal data,
there remains a very significant gap in audiences' contribution
to the control of illegal content.
379. The Committee also raises the question of content
which is illegal by virtue of the fact that it encourages terrorism.
To the extent that such content encourages race hate, it would
be captured by the IWF process described above.
380. In addition, under the Terrorism Act 2006, a police
constable who identifies content as "terrorism-related
information" hosted in the UK can issue a notice to the
host (a "section 3 notice") requiring the host to remove
the content within two days. Ofcom does not have information on
the prevalence or usage of such content.
6.4 Individual responsibility—the role of adults,
parents and their children
381. As noted in the introduction to this chapter, Ofcom
believes that Internet risks are a distributed responsibility,
with consumers playing a significant role alongside industry actors.
In order to help people take more personal responsibility when
they go online, we need to help them become more media literate.
Media literacy is the ability to access, understand and create
communications in a variety of contexts. Some call this "literacy
for the 21st century". Put another way, if literacy is not
only about reading and writing, but also about comprehension and
critical thinking, then media literacy is about engaging these
capabilities when using and consuming media. Without media literacy,
people's ability to participate effectively in society, the marketplace
and in the workforce may be greatly diminished. The Committee's
inquiry directs our attention principally to issues related to
access—how to find the content and services wanted and how
to avoid the content which may be potentially harmful or offensive—and
indeed this is the focus of our response. However, Ofcom also
recognises the importance of "understanding" and "creating"
in the broader media literacy landscape, and these latter aspects
are a part of our overall media literacy work programme.
382. The evidence clearly points to a need to help adults
in general, parents and their children manage the potential or
actual risks of going online by improving their media literacy
skills. We suggest a focus on the following media literacy outcomes
to help them manage this:
Media Literacy Outcomes
For parents and their children
383. Increased awareness and understanding among parents
of their critical role in ensuring the safety of their children
when they are online, through the effective application of carefully
targeted and age-appropriate rules.
384. For example, this should include:
— Increased parental awareness of where to go to
get information on protecting their child online, as well as tips
to ensure that the child has understood and accepted the importance
of any rules that the parent puts in place (eg an Internet green
cross code).
— Increased parental understanding of how they can
apply their real-world parenting skills to the online world (ie
it's not necessarily just about technical literacy).
— Increased parental awareness of what children
are doing online more generally and the key areas/things that
they need to look out for.
— Increased awareness of the age-appropriateness
of certain activities online, eg using a social networking site
(SNS).
— Increased parental and children's awareness of
the risks of access to children's content and other online activity
(eg privacy in relation to the personal information that children
share about themselves online) as well as child contact.
— Increased awareness of where to find high-quality
content online, for younger children in particular.
385. Increased take-up of content management tools such
as filtering software, by making parents aware of its existence,
its benefits and its limitations:
— Increased use of other forms of filtering, such
as those provided by search engines.
— Increased awareness and understanding of the tools
provided by parents' ISPs and awareness of those ISPs which are
more "family-friendly"; for example, as demonstrated
by the presence of a family-friendly "trustmark".[94]
For adults, parents and their children
— Increased awareness and understanding of their
online responsibilities and of the implications of their behaviour
while online. eg:
— an understanding of the potential effects of sharing
different types of personal data, and
— the awareness and ability to manage and control
their personal data appropriately.
For adults in general
— Increased awareness and understanding of the meanings
of the content labels used by industry as well as the implications
of these in relation to children's use of content.
— Increased awareness of where to complain about
potentially harmful or inappropriate content online—eg IWF
for illegal material, the site host for inappropriate material,
their filtering product provider where they identify over- or
under-blocking.
— Increased awareness of the role that each can
play, both in labelling the content they put online and in "community
policing".
Alignment of the advice and information that is being
given to adults, parents and other carers, teachers and children.
— Integrated awareness-raising and educational initiatives,
appropriately targeted at distinct audiences with different needs,
at a local and national level, for maximum effect.
— Linked to this, the inclusion of e-safety across
the national curriculum from a younger age.
Delivering media literacy outcomes
386. A very broad range of good initiatives are currently
under way in this area—from those associated with formal
government agencies such as Becta and CEOP, to those offered by
charitable organisations, industry bodies and individual industry
players including organisations such as Childnet International,
Media Smart, the BFI, the Media Literacy Task Force, the BBC and
Channel 4.[95] However,
to deliver the outcomes offered for consideration above, we propose
that thought is also given to the following:
— The development of a framing strategy for the
delivery of the above outcomes—across the various government
departments, industry bodies and individual industry players,
charitable organisations and regulators—with a single point
of oversight and coordination.
— Development of short-, medium- and long term targets
and the identification of the communications plan, educational
initiatives and funding necessary to deliver these on a sustainable
basis.
— Consider the appropriate balance between a high
level public information/awareness campaign and on-the-ground
activities.
— Prioritise the more vulnerable children.
— Creation of communications and materials that
are target-group specific, ie tailored to the different types
of users (eg parents, children and teachers) so that they are
appropriate to the level of the recipients' skills and understanding.
— Explore the potential for cross-government and
industry funding.
387. The development of such a strategy could include
consideration of the lessons learned from similar initiatives
in other countries. For example, in France, the national CONFIANCE
project is based on co-operation between the government ministries,
educators, technology providers, and a wide range of other players,
including public institutions, NGOs and private companies. A key
aspect of the project is a national awareness campaign "Internet
sans Crainte"—"Internet without Fear" which
aims to reach a broad variety of target audiences and makes use
of existing initiatives and materials. Other nation-wide initiatives
in France include a media campaign orchestrated by the Interdepartmental
Delegation on Family Matters, across all public media, and a national
educational plan to raise awareness of Internet safety issues
among students and educators. In Sweden the Swedish Media Council
has developed a standard toolkit of materials, which is being
implemented though regional training workshops with educational
professionals, social workers and welfare officers across the
country.
388. The development and promotion of an easy-to-use
and interactive online "one-stop-shop" for information
on how to protect children online to help parents, children and
teachers. For example:
— advice on the tools available—eg filters,
labelling, how to complain, family-friendly ISPs etc;
— an age-appropriate Internet "green cross
code";
— information on where to complain; and
— links to other relevant websites.
389. In this area too, international examples may be
useful. One example is the Australian Government's NetAlert
programme, which, as part of a broader range of activities,
provides a central website containing information on Internet
safety issues, free software tools, and links to interactive educational
environments.[96] These
include the Cybersmart Detectives game that teaches children
key Internet safety messages—the activity is based in the
school environment, and brings together a number of agencies with
an interest in promoting online safety for young people. Netty's
World is another example of an interactive learning environment,
and is designed for young children (aged 2-7) to learn about Internet
safety issues. NetAlert encourages parents to take their
children through an online storybook where safety messages are
revealed through five adventures. Children can also join Netty's
Club in which offline Internet safety activities (such as
bookmarks, stickers and pencil holders) are sent free by post.
390. We have outlined our thoughts on the desired ends
and described some of the possible means, but there is still a
substantive question outstanding: what should be the institutional
mix to make this happen (ie what is the role for Government, Ofcom,
the BBC, schools, CEOP, industry etc), as well as the appropriate
funding model.
391. The range of potential risks, the diversity of the
means through which they can be mitigated, and the sharing of
responsibility across Government, industry and the consumer, give
rise to a complex overall system. As well as the specific initiatives
and actions described above, there is a need for continued scrutiny
of the evolving Internet environment, of the risks and potential
harms that consumers face, and the extent to which these risks
are being appropriately and effectively addressed. This will be
essential to securing the goals of the strategy described above.
392. Therefore, we also encouraged the Byron Review team
to consider what success would look like. This could frame an
independent review within two years of implementation of the recommendations,
asking:
— whether there are any further learnings regarding
the evidence of harm and the level of risk which should be taken
into consideration, and
— whether satisfactory progress has been made in
relation to concerns raised and if not, whether alternative measures
need to be pursued.
6.5 Cyberbullying
393. Bullying, and now cyberbullying, is a very significant
aspect of the risks to children's happiness and well-being. For
this reason, we welcome the Committee's specific exploration of
the issues; we also support the extensive work under way to address
this problem:
— There is a significant body of information and
support available to children, parents and schools about the prevention
or handling of cyberbullying—notably the Tackling Cyberbullying
guidelines, published in 2006 by the Schools Minister; and
the DCFS anti-bullying package, launched in September 2007, which
provided further guidelines and advice about cyberbullying, an
information campaign and information films.
— The existing consumer protection arrangements
for communications service providers—for example in relation
to malicious telephone calls and texts—will play a significant
role in helping to tackle cyberbullying via the use of fixed and
mobile networks.
— The Home Office Guidance for the Providers
of Social Networking and Other User Interactive Services,
noted above, will incorporate a range of specific suggestions
for the management of cyberbullying, including the provision of
advice and support to users, tools to block or remove "friends";
procedures for reporting abuse and intervening to prevent further
problems (for example, by terminating accounts).
394. Ofcom does not have specific responsibilities in
relation to the risks to children from bullying, whether in the
playground or online. Nonetheless, it is clear that industry players,
including some communications service providers, have a material
role to play in addressing cyberbullying. Our evidence to the
Committee is a summary of research into cyberbullying and of UK
initiatives intended to address the problem.
395. Overall, it certainly seems that Government and
other relevant institutions have invested significantly in the
development of processes to develop awareness and competences
in relation to the management of cyberbullying; and in ensuring
that the relevant industry players help to prevent the use of
their networks and services for cyberbullying.
Background
396. While cyberbullying has its roots in traditional
bullying, it has distinct features which stem mainly from these
factors:
— the invasiveness of communications technology
into private spaces (eg the home) which were previously safe havens;
— the possibility of being cyberbullied 24/7;
— the breadth of reach and size of potential audience
who may be involved—for example viewing pictures posted
online or reading fabricated blogs;
— the perceived anonymity of communication;
— the difficult in controlling the spread of content;
— the physical distance from the victim and associated
decreased chance of empathy, and
— the profiles of the bully and the target—including
cross-generational bullying.
397. There are a number of definitions of cyberbullying.
Although there are differences, the definition used by the DCSF
captures the common elements:
"Cyberbullying is the use of Information Communications
Technology (ICT), particularly mobile phones and the Internet,
deliberately to upset someone else".[97]
398. Childnet identifies the following types of bullying:
— threats and intimidation;
— harassment or stalking;
— vilification/defamation/hate or bias-bullying;
— identity theft, unauthorised access and impersonation;
— publicly posting, sending or forwarding personal
or private information or images, and
399. Research commissioned by the Anti-Bullying Alliance
from Goldsmiths College, University of London,[98]
identifies seven categories of cyberbullying:
— picture/video-clip bullying via mobile phone cameras;
— phone call bullying via mobile phone;
— bullying through instant messaging (IM), and
400. Webcams, gaming and virtual learning environments
have also been identified by Childnet as potential platforms on
which cyberbullying can be carried out.
The extent of the problem
401. According to the Goldsmiths report to the Anti-bullying
Alliance,[99] "cyberbullying
is a fairly recent concept, and the research exploring it is still
in its initial phases. The relatively few studies that have been
carried out are mostly confined to examining just one aspect of
cyberbullying (for example text messaging), or have been carried
out in conjunction with other research."
402. As a result, it is difficult to draw concrete conclusions
from the studies to date, although certain patterns do seem to
emerge. Studies generally indicate that between 11-34% of their
sample have been cyberbullied. The majority of studies suggest
that females have a higher likelihood of being cyberbullied than
males.
403. Results differ significantly when researching the
action that the cyberbullied person had taken—reporting
that between 28-74% of those cyberbullied did not tell anyone.
Again, although this is not conclusive, the majority of studies
found that between 11-13% of young people studied admitted to
cyberbullying. The Pew Internet and American Life Project (2006)[100]
found that those young people who were users of social networking
sites were more likely to be cyberbullied than those who were
not (39% versus 22%).
404. Finally, a 2006 MSN/You Gov study suggested that
48% of parents were unaware of cyberbullying.[101]
Legal duties and powers: Education law[102]
405. The DCSF guidance notes that the school community
has a duty to protect all its members and provide a safe, healthy
environment. These obligations are highlighted in a range of Education
Acts and government initiatives. In addition, the Education and
Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006) outlines some legal powers which
relate more directly to cyberbullying." The DCSF guidance
continues by noting that "although bullying is not a specific
criminal offence in UK law, there are criminal laws that can apply
in terms of harassment or threatening behaviour" eg the Protection
from Harassment Act 1997 which has both criminal and civil provision,
the Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 127 of the Communications
Act 2003 and the Public Order Act 1986.
What policies are in place?
406. As previously noted, cyberbullying is a subset of
the wider bullying problem; policies on cyberbullying must be
viewed in the context of policies addressing bullying more widely.
For example, the 2000 document Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence
was an anti-bullying pack for schools based on research, relevant
experience, and legislation current at the time.[103]
The National Assembly for Wales issued Respecting Others: Anti-Bullying
Guidance National Assembly for Wales Circular No: 23/2003 in
2003.
407. In Wales and Scotland Anti-Bullying Week 2007 addressed
cyberbullying as a main theme. The National Assembly hopes to
publish new guidelines on tackling cyberbullying in spring 2008.
408. In Scotland, "Respect me" the Executive's
new anti-bullying service was launched in March 2007 and works
with organisations working with children to tackle bullying. The
Executive provides £144,000 to Childline Scotland to fund
their dedicated bullying helpline which offers support directly
to those affected.
409. In Northern Ireland, the Department of Education
has a page on "Child Protection" (cyberbullying) on
its website, which provides information and advice for those concerned,
and cross-refers to the DCSF cyberbullying guidance. "Add
up Group" Northern Ireland (http://www.addupgroupni.com/news.php)
provides leaflets to schools on cyberbullying and how to deal
with it.
Tackling Cyberbullying
410. In July 2006 Schools Minister Jim Knight published
guidelines entitled "Tackling Cyberbullying"
to help schools, parents and pupils in England, prevent and address
the additional risks presented by cyberbullying.[104]
DCSF anti-bullying package
411. In September 2007, the DCSF announced a major package
of measures, including an online campaign, to help schools tackle
all forms of bullying.[105]
This included publishing two documents, written in conjunction
with Childnet International, intended to offer guidance for schools
on preventing, and responding to, cyberbullying.
412. The Staying Safe: Action Plan, published in February
2008, announced the DCSF's plans to launch a new anti-cyberbullying
pack for school staff, as well as new guidance on tackling bullying,
including cyberbullying, outside of schools.
E-safety in the curriculum
413. Although e-safety is not explicitly referred to
within the National Curricula at present, (with the exception
of Northern Ireland) there are a number of areas within the programmes
of study that offer opportunities to discuss e-safety issues,
and these are highlighted within Becta publications.[106]
The new QCA school curriculum in information and communications
technology (ICT) for 11-14-year-olds, which will commence in September
2008, includes Internet safety, including protection from cyberbullying.
The Scottish curriculum is currently going through a national
review, entitled Curriculum for Excellence, with the aim
of developing a streamlined curriculum for 3-18-year-olds and
implementing new approaches to assessment.
414. Don't Suffer in Silence suggests schools
have a duty to ensure that:[107]
— bullying via mobile phone or the Internet is included
in their mandatory anti-bullying policies, that these policies
are regularly updated, and that teachers have sufficient knowledge
to deal with cyberbullying in school;
— the curriculum teaches pupils about the risks
of new communications technologies, the consequences of their
misuse, and how to use them safely;
— all e-communications used on the school site or
as part of school activities off-site are monitored;
— clear policies are set about the use of mobile
phones at school and at other times when young people are under
the school's authority;
— Internet blocking technologies are continually
updated and harmful sites blocked;
— they work with pupils and parents to make sure
new communications technologies are used safely, taking account
of local and national guidance and good practice;
— security systems are in place to prevent images
and information about pupils and staff being accessed improperly
from outside school; and
— they work with police and other partners on managing
cyberbullying.
415. It also suggests that schools can help parents through
Home-School agreements that include clear statements about e-communications,
regular briefings for parents on e-communication standards and
practices in schools and support for parents and pupils if cyberbullying
occurs.
416. It is accepted best practice, although not a legal
requirement, for schools to have a policy for pupils' acceptable
use of the Internet, including aspects of e-safety.
417. There has been debate about the adequacy of provision
of professional support/training for teachers in this area. In
December 2007 Childnet International, supported by Becta, the
TDA and Microsoft, produced two DVDs and additions to its website
in its Know It All series (KIA) about e-safety, aimed at trainee
and secondary school teachers.[108]
Good practice guidance
418. As noted in Cyberbullying Safe to Learn: Embedding
anti-bullying work in schools, "the Home Office is publishing
good practice guidance for social networking providers, drawn
up by social network providers, children's charities and others.[109]
The Home Office has already published such guidance for chat,
instant messenger and web-based services providers,[110]
and on moderating interactive services.[111]
These good practice guidance documents contain a range of recommendations
for service providers, including education of their users; making
reporting an easy and prominent facility for users; and providing
tools for their users (such as blocking tools)."
419. The UK code of practice for the self-regulation
of new forms of content on mobiles[112]—the
mobile operators' Code of Practice—has been developed by
Orange, O2, T-Mobile, Virgin Mobile, Vodafone and 3 for use in
the UK market. The intention behind the Code is that parents and
carers should have access to the information with which they can
show their children how to use new mobile devices responsibly,
and the power to influence the type of content they can access.
Prevention activities[113]
420. All UK mobile phone operators have nuisance call
centres set up and / or procedures in place to deal with such
instances. They may be able to change the number of the person
being bullied.
421. It is possible to get content taken down from video-hosting
sites, though the content will need to be illegal or have broken
the terms of service of the site in other ways.
422. It is good practice for Instant Messenger (IM) providers
to have visible and easy-to-access reporting features on their
service. Instant Messenger providers can investigate and shut
down any accounts that have been misused and which clearly break
their terms of service.
423. It is good practice for social network providers
to make it easy for users to report incidents of cyberbullying,
and to have clear, accessible and prominent reporting features.
If social networking sites do receive reports about cyberbullying,
they will investigate and can remove content that is illegal or
which breaks their terms and conditions in other ways. They can
delete the accounts of those who have broken the rules.
424. It is good practice for chat room providers to have
a clear and prominent reporting mechanism to enable the user to
contact the service provider. Users who abuse the service can
have their accounts deleted. Some services may be moderated, and
the moderators will warn users posting abusive comments, or take
down content that breaks their terms of use.[114]
Provision of information
425. Individual providers also provide resources designed
to raise awareness of, or help tackle, cyberbullying. The provision
of such information should, however, be consistent and easy for
consumers to locate.
February 2008
APPENDIX 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 What is the Internet?
The Internet is a publicly accessible global communications
network, which enables the interconnection of a wide variety of
devices ranging from mobile phones to domestic computers to large
corporate computer networks. Figure 1 provides a basic representation
of the Internet's distribution network.
Figure 1
THE INTERNET AS A DISTRIBUTION NETWORK
Networks and devices attached to the Internet communicate
by exchanging packets of data using a standard called Internet
Protocol (IP). Along with the content of the communications, an
IP packet contains all of the information required for it to traverse
the Internet between the source and destination of the communication.
2. THE INTERNET
VALUE CHAIN
We use a value chain model to describe the roles of the key
players involved in the creation and distribution of content over
the Internet. The value chain model comprises six segments, each
with a discrete function (see Figure 2). However, some entities
cover more than one segment, which can create confusion among
some about their exact status and duties; this is very important
in considering the legal protections and liabilities of different
service providers. Alongside the value chain sits the Internet
management layer which supports the Internet at all levels.
Figure 2
THE INTERNET VALUE CHAIN
We will now consider each of these segments in turn to understand
how content is made available and accessed.
2.1 Internet management
The Internet management layer consists of the international,
regional and national bodies which manage the technology and addressing
system which underpins the Internet. They ensure that the technology
standards that support the Internet such as the Internet language
HTML and the transport protocol TCP are interoperable. They also
enable users to locate sites through the domain name system, and
locate individual computers on any given network from IP addresses.
2.2 Content producers
Content producers commission, produce and own the original
copyrights to the content available on the Internet. They include
the traditional content producers we see in other media such as
Disney and Warner Bros., as well as online-specific content producers
and consumers who produce user-generated content. Content producers
may upload their content directly to a website (such as MySpace)
or it may reach the Internet via a content aggregator; eg a music
track may reach the Internet via iTunes.
Certain content producers label their content and insert
tags (metadata) that can be used to filter the content. This entails
packaging content with information about the characteristics of
the product or service. Examples of labels include easily understood
graphics, plain English description and the classification and
rating systems used in cinemas.
2.3 Content aggregators
Content aggregators purchase content and negotiate rights
deals with multiple content producers, and package the content
for its distribution further down the value chain. Internet-specific
content aggregators include AOL and Yahoo, whereas the BBC and
Sky are content aggregators working in a variety of media including
the Internet.
2.4 Web hosts
Content producers or aggregators can have their content hosted
on the Internet in three different ways:
— by running their own servers and contracting for
their own connection to the Internet. Google and Amazon host their
content in this way;
— by leasing a server from a specialist provider,
who will also provide a connection to the Internet. For example,
the BBC has its content hosted on dedicated servers provided by
Siemens; or
— by sharing a server provided by a third party.
This is the case for most small and medium content producers and
aggregators, who may share space on an AOL server, for example.
In addition to these models, under which content providers
pay for hosting services, there is an important further category:
the user-generated content hosts. There are thousands of service
providers who allow users to post content to their sites, thereby
making it accessible to the global audience. Because they are
offering hosting services, these providers have a special legal
status under the E-Commerce Directive (for detail see Annex 2,
Section 2.4): they cannot be held responsible for monitoring the
content they host, although the protection from liability ends
when they are informed about potentially illegal content. This
protection is particularly important in considering the regulation
of hosting service providers.
2.5 Internet service providers (ISPs)
ISPs provide Internet access to individuals and organisations.
ISPs either own the physical access facilities or procure them
from an access provider. In order to connect to the Internet,
an ISP interconnects and exchanges traffic with other ISPs.
The ISPs that provide access to the network are national
entities. However, the Internet backbone infrastructure is spread
across the globe; it is not provided by any one player or nation
but is owned by multiple Internet backbone providers.
2.6 Search and navigation
Search engines, directories and online communities facilitate
users' access to content. Search engines allow users to search
the Internet using keywords, whereas directories classify and
cross-reference Internet content to enable users to find the content
they need. Online communities may store links which are of collective
interest.
2.7 Consumer devices
Consumer devices consist of the hardware and software that
enable users to access content hosted on the Internet. The device
will interpret and present the content that arrives at the device
into a form which is accessible by the consumer. Consumer devices
such as computers and mobile phones use Internet browsers such
as Internet Explorer to view web pages and email applications
such as Lotus Notes to send and receive email.
3. THE DIFFERENT
TYPES OF
CONTENT AND
SERVICES AVAILABLE
ON THE
INTERNET
Given the global and innovative nature of the Internet it
is difficult to compile and maintain a universal service classification
framework. However, one of the key distinctions to make is between
commercially produced and user-generated content.
3.1 Professionally produced and user-generated content
The distinction between professionally produced and user-generated
content applies across text and audio-visual content. Alongside
the content provided by professionals—eg those working for
mainstream media organisations, funded by advertising, subscription
or other paid access—there is a vast body of user-generated
text which takes the form of blogs, chat rooms or visitor comment
logs.
Audio-visual content can also, in principle, be divided into
professionally produced content and that which is user-generated.
Professionally produced audio-visual content is typically created
by mainstream media organisations such as the BBC or Time Warner.
User-generated content is created by anybody with the tools to
produce it and make it available.
In practice, however, these distinctions can be blurred:
— much professional content is placed in non-professional
contexts, for example in the placement of TV programming on YouTube
(see Figure 3.1);
— professionals are increasingly participants in
the user-generated world, as active bloggers;
— traditional media providers enable and encourage
user participation, allowing comments and blogging on news websites;
encouraging user provision of information and images within the
newsgathering process; and
— some user-generated content is very popular—on
a scale matching or exceeding that of some traditional media outlets.
The distinction is of particular importance when we go on
to examine the issues around potentially harmful content. Professionally
produced content is associated with professional businesses and
institutions, which facilitates the development and maintenance
of regulatory frameworks and codes of conduct, in a way which
is not possible in relation to the unlimited numbers of creators
of UGC. This is one of the factors that makes new approaches necessary,
in relation to harmful content risks online.
Figure 3
YouTube.com CHANNELS WITH MOST VIEWS OF ALL TIME AS AT
02.11.2007
Source: YouTube.com
3.2 Editorial control of user-generated content services
A further, critical characteristic of services featuring
user-generated content is the means of editorial control; the
extent to which, and the ways in which, content is reviewed against
the editorial standards a service provider has defined. For linear
broadcasting, prior editorial control is at the heart of the business;
broadcasters have a formal duty to ensure that broadcast content
is consistent with general standards (enshrined in the Broadcasting
Code). Where there are risks to this control—for example
in live broadcasts with unscripted content or audience participation—broadcasters
may take specific measures to ensure compliance, such as the introduction
of a short delay to enable inappropriate material to be edited.
Service providers who host UGC can adopt a range of approaches
to managing content that is uploaded. They can:
— pre-moderate: All user contributions are
reviewed before being made available;
— post-moderate: User contributions are made
available immediately, but all are reviewed within a specific
time after being made available; or
— community-moderate: User contributions
are made available immediately, and reviewed only if a user complains
that the content does not reflect the site's standards or is otherwise
inappropriate. In some instances, the right to review and remove
content may also rest with respected community members, rather
than being retained exclusively by the service provider.
A website that operates all three forms of content moderation
is www.bbc.co.uk. According to the Corporation's online services
guidelines, fora on sites designed to appeal to children are pre-moderated.
The guidelines also state that areas which invite users to send
pictures by email, and live chat where users talk to a celebrity
guest, are generally pre-moderated.
The BBC states that post-moderation is suitable for fora
on sites which attract discussion about current affairs, or have
a history of controversy, polarised debate, personal or racist
abuse or potentially defamatory comments. Community moderation
may be suitable for less sensitive sites and those where an active,
mature online community has emerged and which has given rise to
few concerns while post-moderated.[115]
The mainstream user-generated content websites moderate content
through their communities. For example, YouTube enables its users
to report potentially inappropriate content by flagging a video.
Each flagged video is reviewed by YouTube's staff, who will remove
any content that violates the site's terms of use. Website standards
and take-down policies are discussed in more detail in the approaches
and tools section.
4. AUDIO-VISUAL
CONTENT AVAILABLE
ON THE
MOBILE PHONE
The Internet can now be accessed, not just over the Internet
from a computer with a fixed-line Internet connection, but also
from a mobile phone. Indeed, mobile phones are among the key devices
used by children and teenagers to communicate, and to access and
share content. Ofcom research conducted between April and September
2007 shows that 69% of 12-15-year-olds, 28% of 8-11-year-olds
and 5% of 5-7-year-olds use mobile phones almost every day.
Nearly half of all 8-15-year-olds in our survey said they
used their phones to play games. A smaller proportion used mobiles
to access the Internet (6%). This suggests that the potential
for children to come across possibly harmful material on the Internet
via their mobile phone is, today at least, less than that on the
Internet. Nonetheless, as discussed in Annex 2, section 2.9, the
mobile network operators have a code of practice which aims to
reduce this risk.
There are four means through which mobile content is made
available:
— Commercial content offered on operator websites:
this may include operators' own or third-party material offered
via the operator's portal. This covers a broad range of content
types, such as news updates, music and video downloads, games
and online chat services.
— Wider Internet content: this is content available
on the wider Internet that can be accessed via the mobile phone.
The operator in this case acts as an ISP by providing the connectivity,
but not determining the content or services accessed.
— User-generated mobile content: content produced
and published for sharing by mobile users. This can be done by
using either the operators' own UGC services, or those on the
Internet.
— Content accessed using other phone connectivity
eg Bluetooth: this is the content downloaded directly from other
devices (which can be mobile phones, PDAs, computers—any
device which has the same connectivity technology installed).
This activity bypasses the mobile operator's network entirely.
5. ECONOMICS OF
THE INTERNET
The Internet enables a vast array of different services and
different types of commercial and collaborative relationships.
Its economic structure is complex, though Internet access itself
is a relatively simple product. Consumers pay for Internet access
on the basis of speed of data access (bandwidth) and in some instances
total usage caps (the total volume of data received or sent).
The price of access does not vary according to the characteristics
of the underlying content or other services—there is no
discrimination between surfing the web, sending email or making
voice calls. Internet access costs the same independently of the
content characteristics of the services accessed, though the amount
of data involved can be important (eg relative to usage limits).
However, alongside access revenue, money can enter the market
at nearly every step of the value chain.
Internet revenue streams
There are four distinct types of Internet revenue stream:
— hosting and connection services;
— content payments/subscriptions;
— e-commerce transactions.
We will look at the first three of these. E-commerce transaction
revenue is largely remote from the provision of content over the
Internet, and will not be considered in this report.
The following charts show how money enters the Internet value
chain from hosting and connection services, content subscription
and advertising. To simplify the representation, we have considered
consumers who advertise on the Internet (eg place an online classified
advertisement), to be businesses.
Figure 4
MONEY ENTERING THE INTERNET TO DELIVER AND RECEIVE CONTENT
Money also flows around the value chain; for example, content
producers, aggregators and search providers may all purchase hosting
services. There are also flows within each of the segments; for
example, ISPs providing connections to businesses and consumers
also pay fees to the backbone ISPs.
5.1 Hosting and connection charges
Internet connection revenues
Ofcom estimates that during 2006 total revenue from residential
and SME Internet connections increased by 11% to £2.8 billion.
In the same period, revenue from residential broadband services
went up by 33% from £1.5 billion to £2.0 billion. Falling
prices for broadband, associated with bundling offers, are constraining
future growth in revenue, and as LLU availability and take-up
grows it seems likely that prices will continue to fall as competition
for subscribers intensifies.
Figure 5
UK INTERNET AND BROADBAND SERVICE PROVISION RETAIL REVENUES
Source: Ofcom/operators
Note: Dial-up metered revenue figure is based on revenue
paid to telecom provider not the element retained by ISP.
Research conducted by GfK NOP on behalf of the CBI and Google[116]
gives us some information about the average annual corporate spend
on Internet-based technology and systems. From its survey of 500
companies with over 50 people, GfK NOP found that the average
proportion of annual capital investment in the UK which is spent
on Internet-based technology and systems is 11.41%. This equates
to an average spend of £297,687 (on a mean annual capital
investment of £2.61 million) or £10.6 billion across
all UK business with 50+ employees.
5.2 Content subscription revenues
Some sites such as the Economist.com, wsj.com and FT.com
(all of which also sell a hard copy paper), charge an online subscription
fee for access to certain types of content. For example, the Economist
charges $79-$89 per year for an online subscription and the Financial
Times charges £98.99 per year for an online subscription.
However, access to some content is available free of charge. Some
of the subscription sites also feature advertising alongside the
premium content.
However, in an indication that content subscriptions may
create less value than free availability with advertising funding,
the New York Times announced in September 2007 that content
in its paid-for TimesSelect service, including online access
to current columnists and its archives, would be made available
free of charge. In a statement, the New York Times said
that because of online users' growing reliance on search in order
to navigate the Web, it "expects to see a substantially increased
number of unique users referred to and accessing the site once
the pay wall is gone".[117]
Although we can find examples of content subscription services,
we cannot determine the total expenditure on such services in
the UK.
5.3 Advertising revenues
Online is still the fastest growing advertising segment.
UK Internet advertising revenues may not be doubling annually
as they did between 2002 and 2003, but growth of 47% to year end
in 2006 still far exceeds any other medium. The IAB[118]
results from the first half of 2007 show that this has continued
into this year, with 41.3% year on year growth in the first half
of 2007, taking the sector to a half-year high of £1,334
million (15% of total advertising spend)—compared to £917
million a year ago. The IAB suggests that the key drivers for
growth are broadband take-up, increases in time spent online,
and improved measurement and web analytics.[119]
In 2006 Internet advertising spending amounted to £2.0
billion, and this accounted for 12.0% of total advertising spend
across the six media featured in figure 6. Internet advertising
already generates more revenue than cinema, radio or outdoor advertising,
and given its growth rates, it will soon start to compete with
other media. At the end of October, The Times reported
that Google's Q3 headline advertising revenues of £327 million
had surpassed ITV1's £317 million, the first quarter in which
the Google's advertising revenues have beaten the UK's top commercial
broadcaster.[120]
Figure 6
ADVERTISING SPEND BY MEDIUM
Source: The Advertising Association
Notes: These figures include all advertising spend, including
display and classifieds. Internet expenditure includes paid-for
search. All figures are nominal.
The growth in online advertising is being driven by search,
which increased by 50% to £1.2 billion in 2006, constituting
58% of all online advertising. Enders Analysis suggests that this
is linked to search becoming increasingly dominant as a means
of navigating the web, and to the migration of local search from
offline to online, with all three major search engines rolling
out local services in 2006. Enders also reports that search advertising
yield per page has increased as advertisers have invested more
heavily and Internet users have entered more complex search phrases,
which enables a greater proportion of search advertising space
to be sold at higher prices. Technological improvement may have
increased relevancy and click-through rates.[121]
Figure 7
Source: The Advertising Association
Notes: These figures include all advertising spend, including
display, classified and paid-for search. All figures are nominal.
The online advertising market divides into three segments:
— display advertising: an advertiser pays
to place a banner or logo on a website;
— search: an advertiser pays to have a logo
or link placed alongside search returns for a specific search
word or phrase; and
— other classified: an advertiser pays websites
to have their company or product placed in a directory.
Google is increasingly dominant in the UK; its advertising
revenues of £872 million accounted for 75% of all UK search
advertising in 2006.8
5.3.1 How does Internet advertising work?
There are many ways in which an individual or organisation
can place an online advertisement. A large corporate advertiser
may have a separate advertising agency for online, through typically
this would be linked to its other marketing agencies. Online planning/buying
and creative agencies may also be independent of one another.
However, the basic model resembles that for other media: the client
briefs a planning agency with the objectives and the target audience
of the campaign, and the agency develops a plan for the types
of Internet advertising (search, display), and the types of websites
that might be suitable.
Once agreed, the planning agency can acquire advertising
space directly from media publishers, which have their own sales
forces; however, a significant proportion of advertising is placed
via networks which aggregate banner space from many sites. Networks
sell space on specific sites and on a "blind" basis
under which advertisers are not informed where their adverts will
be placed. Unsurprisingly, advertising sold "blind"
attracts much lower prices than advertising which is sold on specific
properties, or on a restricted basis (for example, "blind",
but excluding pornography sites).
This diagram illustrates the various routes through which
advertising can be purchased—advertisers can:
— buy directly from a publisher;
— buy from an advertising network; or
— buy through an agency, which itself can use either
of the preceding routes.
5.3.2 Advertising networks
Figures received by Ofcom indicate that at the time of writing
there are between 35 and 50 advertising networks in the UK, operating
on a variety of models. Some act as dedicated sales forces for
particular media owners; however, many advertising networks are
"blind". Examples of major advertising networks are:
There are also genre-specific advertising networks, such
as eggnetwork (www.videoegg.com/adnetwork), which is specifically
designed for social networking websites.
Advertising networks—relationship with advertisers
A blind advertising network will sell web space across all
its publishers, and may not tell an advertiser where its advertising
has been placed. However, an advertiser can set restrictions on
the types of site where advertisements are placed.
There are ways of applying restrictions to a blind advertising
network:
— certain networks may offer a premium network of,
for example, 100 sites only on which the advertiser will appear;
— other networks offer advertising space exclusively
from the top publishers as their core proposition,[122]
and
— the advertiser may also be offered the opportunity
to target a specific demographic group or content categories,
or block certain other types of websites, notably pornographic
sites; sites targeted at children, etc.
The advertising network is likely to charge a higher CPM
(cost per thousand views) for web space for a request with restrictions,
than one that is open to its entire network. Feedback from the
industry suggests that, as advertisers use networks for large-scale
advertising at the lowest possible CPM, such restrictions may
not be very popular.
There is evidence that "blind" advertising networks
can create problems for advertisers. In autumn 2005 the Internet
Advertising Sales House (IASH) was established because of concern
expressed by several advertising networks that their business
could be damaged by advertisements being placed next to unsuitable
content.[123] The particular
cases which prompted this were banner ads for Napster and Apple's
iTunes appearing on illegal music download sites, as well as the
Sky and Barclays brands appearing on pirate Internet services.[124]
The IASH code of conduct is discussed in Annex 2. Section 2.9
on tools and approaches, along with the publisher rules operated
by affiliate networks and Google's Adsense programme.[125]
5.3.3 Advertising pricing models
There are three main pricing models for Internet advertising—CPM
(cost per mille/thousand views), CPC (cost per click), and performance
or CPA (cost per action). These are generally associated with
different forms of advertising.
CPM
The CPM model charges advertisers for the amount of traffic
that views a web page with the specified advertisement on it.
This pricing model is not only used in Internet advertising, but
also for TV and radio. It is generally associated with display
advertising on the Internet, which advertising networks, sales
houses and some individual websites sell by quoting a CPM rate.
Cost per click
Whereas CPM advertisers pay for awareness-raising and brand-building,
CPC advertising has a more direct relation to consumer interest:
advertisers only pay if a user clicks on the banner or a link.
CPC pricing is most commonly used for search advertising.
Cost per action
The CPA (or performance) model charges advertisers when a
something happens beyond a click—for example a user fills
in a form or even makes a purchase. CPA is most commonly used
for affiliate marketing: advertisers select individual sites or
types of site where they would like to appear, and are only charged
if an advertisement generates a lead or a sale.
5.3.4 Advertising formats
The following types of advertising are discussed in detail
below:
— classified advertising;
— search advertising, and
Display advertising
Display advertising can take many forms on the Internet.
The oldest form is the banner, a horizontal bar across the top
of a web page. The side bar or skyscraper has developed from this;
it is vertically oriented rather than horizontally. A pop-up advertisement
appears in its own window when the user goes to a web page and
floating ads appear when a web page is first visited, and fly
over the page for a period of time.
Classified advertising
Advertising agencies generally don't have a large involvement
in classified advertising, as these adverts are often placed by
individuals or small businesses in directories. Allinlondon is
an example of a website that features classified adverts. According
to this website, a business can be listed for one year for £99
+ VAT.
Search advertising
Search advertising is the dominant sector in UK Internet
advertising, and in the UK, search advertising is dominated by
Google, which has approximately 75% of the market's revenues.[126]
Its growth rate currently shows no signs of abating; according
to its latest results, the company's revenues increased by 57%
in the latest quarter.[127]
Google.co.uk is also the most visited site in the UK, having 17.1
million unique visitors in April 2007. The two other main search
engines in the UK are Yahoo! and MSN, whose .co.uk sites had unique
visitors of 11.9 and 7.8 million in April 2007 respectively.[128]
Google's search advertising programme is known as "Adwords".
It operates primarily under a cost per click business model, although
it is starting to offer CPA to certain advertisers. Under the
Adwords programme, the advertiser composes the text of
the advert, selects the search keywords whose results they would
like their advert to appear alongside, and specifies a maximum
cost per click. Google then states what rank the advertiser can
appear at for this keyword (and combinations thereof) and how
much the advertiser will be charged for each click through.
Affiliate marketing
Affiliate marketing advertisements resemble display advertisements
but run on different pricing and placement models: affiliate advertising
is sold on a CPA basis. In addition, affiliate advertising is
pulled—media owners register with a network and seek
permission to feature advertising from the network. As with display
advertising, affiliate advertising can be placed blind, or subject
to approval from the advertiser or network operator.
5.4 Signs of consolidation in the Internet advertising
industry?
Company activity in the Internet industry in 2007 has been
characterised by the major media companies becoming increasingly
involved in online advertising, either through the acquisition
of an advertising broker or digital marketing agency, or through
exclusive partnerships with, or acquisition of, social networking
or UGC websites.
Figure 9 lists some of the major deals from 2007, as well
as some from earlier years. The increased activity of the major
media companies in the online advertising space suggests that
they perceive it to be a growth area, and may be indicative of
consolidation in the sector.
Figure 9
MAJOR MEDIA COMPANIES: SELECTED DEALS IN THE ONLINE ADVERTISING
AREA
| Company | Deal
|
| AOL | Acquired advertising.com, a leading advertising network, which pools inventory from many media owners and sells it to advertisers (2004) Made an offer for TradeDoubler, a leading digital marketing company. This offer was rejected (2007)
|
| Google | Acquired 5% stake in AOL (2005) Acquired YouTube for $1.65 billion (2006) Agreed exclusive advertising partnership with Fox Interactive Media, which owns MySpace (2006) Announced that it is joining forces with MySpace to launch "OpenSocial", a set of common application program interfaces (APIs) for building social applications across the web (2007) Announced agreement to acquired DoubleClick, a leading advertising services company for $3.1 billion (2007). The acquisition is still being looked at by European and American competition regulators.
|
| Microsoft | Acquired the aQuantive family of digital marketing companies for approximately $6 billion (2007) Acquired a $240 million stake in Facebook's next round of financing at a $15 billion valuation (2007)
|
| WPP | Acquired 24/7 RealMedia, a digital marketing agency (2007). The acquisition is valued at approximately $649 million.
|
| Yahoo! | Acquired the remaining 80% stake in RightMedia, which offers an online advertising exchange, for c $650 million (2007). Yahoo already owned 20%. Announced definitive agreement to buy BlueLithium, a leading online advertising network (2007)
|
| Source: Ofcom |
5.5 Economics of user-generated content and social networking
websites
According to the Internet Advertising Bureau, social networking
websites are not currently generating a significant volume of
online advertising expenditure—though this has not had much
impact on the values assigned to, and paid for, the businesses.
A recent report from Datamonitor looks at the future for
social networks (including UGC sites like YouTube and Flickr).
Datamonitor forecasts that North America will remain the largest
market for social network revenue over the next five years, but
that revenue will plateau in all four markets during this time.
As far as EMEA is concerned, revenues of $118 million are reported
for 2006, rising to $683.8 by 2012. Social network membership
growth is said to be led by the UK, where it has taken off in
2007.[129]
Figure 10
GLOBAL SOCIAL NETWORKING REVENUE 2006-12
Source: Datamonitor, The Outlook for Social Networks,
September 2007
User-generated content sites also have an impact on other
players in the value chain. For example, they increase video consumption
and hence bandwidth use: industry observers suggested that YouTube
was already streaming 40 million videos and 200 terabytes of data
per day in early 2006.[130]
Some UGC websites are sharing revenue with the creators of
content: for example Revver, a video-sharing platform, states
that it shares the ad revenue equally with the content creators.[131]
The BBC also reported in January 2007 that YouTube founder Chad
Hurley confirmed that his team was working on a revenue-sharing
mechanism that would "reward creativity".[132]
Summary
— Ofcom estimates that during 2006 total revenue
from UK residential and SME Internet connections increased by
11% to £2.8 billion.
— GfK NOP estimates that all UK businesses with
50+ employees spent £10.6 billion on Internet-based technology
and systems in 2006.
— £2 billion was spent on Internet advertising
in 2006 in the UK, more than on radio, outdoor or cinema put together.
— 23% of UK Internet advertising spend is on display,
56% on paid-for search.
— Google generated 75% of all paid-for search advertising
in the UK in 2006.
— Display advertising can be sold directly by a
media owner's sales force, or it may be brokered by an advertising
network.
— An advertising network may be "blind"
or it may offer the advertiser the opportunity to restrict the
types of websites on which its adverts are placed, or it may offer
a list of premium websites.
— The more specific the advertiser is in restricting
where its adverts can be placed, the more expensive is the banner
space it buys.
(1) IASH was set up in order to enable advertising networks
and advertisers to standardise and agree the types of website
which could and could not take adverts.
(2) There is evidence that websites are seeking to improve
the quality of their content by sharing revenue with content creators.
— The importance of online advertising has been
indicated by the partnerships, mergers and acquisitions involving
major media companies taking place in this area. The activity
suggests that consolidation will take place within the online
advertising industry.
— Despite not currently attracting large amounts
of advertising revenue, a SNS website has been valued at up to
$15 billion.
— The UK is reported to be leading social network
membership growth in the EMEA region, with growth having taken
off in 2007.
6. KEY PLAYERS
6.1 ISPs
Ofcom research indicates that in Q3 2007 just over 50% of
residential Internet connections were provided by BT or Virgin
Media, with the next biggest players being AOL, Tiscali and Sky.
Figure 11
ISP SHARE OF RESIDENTIAL INTERNET CONNECTIONS
Source: Ofcom, Q3 2007
Niche ISPs
It is also worth considering the number of operators active
in some of the segments. We have listed the major ISPs above,
and in January 2007 there were also approximately 686 niche ISPs.
Of these:
— 390 provide "hosting, connections and other
services";
— 224 provide "hosting and other services";
and
— 72 provide "connections and other services".
In terms of the total market, niche ISPs, irrespective of
the type of services provided, serve approximately 30% of the
total enterprises in the UK and 5% of households. Focussing on
connections only, of the niche ISPs surveyed, 16% of all UK businesses
and 2% of UK households have an Internet connection service supplied
by a niche ISP.
45% of the niche ISPs surveyed said they were member of an
Internet industry body; the most popular two were Nominet and
ISPA UK. Of those that weren't members, 52% said the reasons for
not joining were because there were no perceived benefits, and
it was not worth the cost, as it did not appear relevant to their
activities; 25% said they had not got round to it.
6.2 Profile of UGC, SNS and online games websites
Nielsen Online data show that the most popular websites among
the UK population have, by and large, remained stable over the
six months from February to August 2007 (figure 12). The websites
featuring in the top ten, in terms of the highest unique audience,[133]
included search engines, web portals and shopping sites. User-generated
content site YouTube also appears in the top ten during August
2007. Search features in three out of the top four websites (Google,
MSN/Windows Live and Yahoo!).
Social networking websites Facebook and Bebo appear in the
top twenty, having the 15th and 18th highest number of unique
visits during August 2007 respectively. MySpace is also present
under the brand "Fox Interactive Media" (FIM). According
to Nielsen Online, MySpace contributed approximately 84% of the
FIM audience in August 2007. Facebook has increased quickly in
popularity; it was ranked only 90th in February 2007 rose to 15th
in August 2007, and has since overtaken MySpace as the most popular
SNS website.
Figure 12
THE TOP RANKED WEBSITES BY UNIQUE AUDIENCES
| | Rank
| |
| Brand | August 2007
| February 2007 | Category*
|
| Google | 1 | 1
| Search and navigation |
| MSN/Windows Live | 2 | 2
| Web portal |
| Microsoft | 3 | 3
| Software and applications |
| Yahoo! | 4 | 4
| Web portal |
| BBC | 5 | 5
| News and information |
| eBay | 6 | 6
| Shopping |
| Apple | 7 | 7
| Technology and entertainment |
| Amazon | 8 | 8
| Shopping |
| YouTube | 9 | 13
| Video-sharing |
| Real Network | 10 | 9
| Media player |
| AOL Media Network | 11 |
10 | Web portal |
| Fox Interactive Media | 12 |
12 | Member community/entertainment
|
| Ask Search Network | 13 |
14 | Search and navigation |
| Wikipedia | 14 | 11
| Information |
| Facebook | 15 | 90
| Member community |
| Lycos Europe | 16 | 15
| Web portal |
| Virgin Media | 17 | 16
| Entertainment and communications |
| Bebo | 18 | 22
| Member community |
| Tesco | 19 | 19
| Shopping |
| PayPal | 20 | 17
| Online trading |
Source: Nielsen Online (sites highlighted represent
UGC or SNS sites)/*Ofcom categorisation
Further information on the top UGC, SNS, online games and
P2P websites is available in Annex 5.
Summary
— BT and Virgin supply half of all residential Internet
connections.
— In January 2007 there were over 650 niche ISPs.
However, only 2% of household Internet connections are provided
by niche ISPs.
— Search dominates the top websites for all adults
and children.
— YouTube, Facebook and Bebo are all in the top
20 UK sites by unique audience. MySpace is also present under
the brand "Fox Interactive Media".
1
Between October 25 and November 7 TNS (the market research
agency) conducted face-to-face, computer aided interviews with
653 parents, 653 children aged between 5-17 years from the same
household, and 279 non-parents. We use the phrase "young
people" to refer specifically to 16-17 year-olds. When we
refer to the full sample of children aged 5-17, we use the phrases
"children" or "children and young people"
interchangeably, The interviews covered: current media habits
and consumption, attitudes to the Internet, parental rules around
Internet use, use of and satisfaction with software filters, concerns
about the Internet and mobile Internet, exposure to inappropriate
material online and awareness of who to complain to. We deliberately
interviewed a parent and child from the same household so that
we could directly compare their responses. Back
2
We draw on research from Ofcom's Communications tracking survey
(Q3 2007 data, n = 2235 respondents across the UK), Ofcom's Media
Literacy Audit (fieldwork was conducted between October and December
2007 with n = 2,905 adults and n = 2,068 children. The Media Literacy
Audit research reports will be published by Ofcom in Spring 2008),
as will Ofcom's qualitative research into consumers use of social
networking sites. Back
3
See Annex 5 for the full research report and a methodological
overview. Back
4
Parents of children aged 8-17. Back
5
We asked first of all if they had come across harmful or inappropriate
material in the past six months and, if they had, we asked the
open-ended question "What type of content was it?".
Thus these findings relate to self-reported harmful or inappropriate
material. Back
6
See below, "The promotion of industry self-regulation"
and Chapter 6 for more on this. Back
7
See Annex 2 for more details. Back
8
Annex 1 includes a description of the value chain activities;
Annex 2 describes the current activity in content protection at
each stage of the value chain. Back
9
IASH = Independent Advertising Sales House. Back
10
L Grant Learning to be part of the Knowledge Economy: Digital
Divides and media literacy Future Lab 2007. Back
11
Demos Web I'm 64, Hannon and Bradwell November 2007. Back
12
Demos Web I'm 64, Hannon and Bradwell November 2007. Back
13
L Grant Learning to be part of the Knowledge Economy: Digital
Divides and media literacy Future Lab 2007. Back
14
Social Exclusion Unit, Inclusion Through Innovation: Tacking
Social Exclusion through new technologies, 2005; Cabinet Office
Enabling a Digitally United Kingdom: A framework for action,
the Digital Inclusion Panel report, 2004. Back
15
Ofcom The Consumer Experience, 2007. Back
16
Ofcom UK Communications Market 2007, Telecommunications. Back
17
The Consumer Experience Ofcom 2007. Back
18
Ofcom UK Communications Market 2007, p 310. Back
19
Ibid, p 311. Back
20
Interactive Media in retail Group "IMRG: e-retail hits
80% hypergrowth-£4bn web sales in July" http://www.imrg.org/ItemDetail.aspx?clg=InfoItems&cid=pr&pid=pr_Index_press_release_200807 Back
21
P Foley, X Alfonso, K Brown and J Fisher Connecting Communities:
tackling exclusion? An examination of the impact and use of the
Internet by socially excluded groups in London GLA 2003 (This
figure does not take account of the costs to the individual of
going online). Back
22
Robert Jaques, vnunet.com Brits go web shopping on Christmas
Day, 2 January 2008 http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2206305/brits-turn-web-shopping Back
23
Press release, Nationwide, 22 May 2007, http://www.nationwide.co.uk/mediacentre/PressRelease_this.asp?ID=1001 Back
24
Ibid. Back
25
Interview by Annie Kelly with Helen Milner, MD, UK Online Centres,
19 September 2007 Guardian. Back
26
Local e-government to deliver £300m savings, Silicon.com
Dec 2004. Back
27
This was one of the findings of Service Transformation: A better
service for citizens and businesses, a better deal for the taxpayer,
by Sir D Varney 2006. Back
28
National Audit Office, Better Public Services Through E-Government,
2002. Back
29
Quantitative study based on 2,905 interviews with adults aged
16 and over from October to December 2007. To be published in
Spring 2008. Back
30
The 2006 research was based on 18 x 1.5 hour focus groups in 6
different locations across the UK (Watford, Cardiff, Belfast,
Manchester, Edinburgh and Southampton). The groups were supplemented
with 20 in-home depth interviews among consumers with disabilities
and/or those unable to leave the home to attend group sessions. Back
31
"Older People and Communications Technology", Ofcom,
July 2006. Back
32
"Internet and Convergence Report", Continental Research,
Autumn 2007, p 38. Back
33
"Internet and Convergence Report", Continental Research,
Autumn 2007, p 38. Back
34
UK Communications Market 2007, Ofcom. Back
35
"Participative Web and User-Created Content: Web 2.0,
Wikis and Social Networking", p 64, OECD, 2007 http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/9307031E.PDF Back
36
Ibid, p 64. Back
37
Ibid, p 12. Back
38
Ibid, p 12. Back
39
Ibid, p 64. Back
40
UK Communications Market 2007, Ofcom p 191. Back
41
Ibid, p 12. Back
42
This argument is made in Balkin, J (2004) "Digital Speech
and Democratic Culture: A theory of freedom of expression for
the information society", New York niversity Law Review,
79, 1. Back
43
"Internet and Convergence Report", Continental
Research, Autumn 2007, p 18. Back
44
S Leitch Review of Skills, Prosperity for all in the global
economy-world class skills, December 2006. Back
45
"Internet and Convergence Report", Continental
Research, Autumn 2007. Back
46
Ibid, p 45. Back
47
Ibid, p 45. Back
48
The impact of the Internet on UK inflation, Dr Sushil Wadhwani,
member, Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England, delivered
at the London School of Economics on 23 February 2000. Back
49
"The Contribution of Mobile Phones to the UK economy",
report produced by cebr for mmO2, p. 4 http://www.02.com/media_files/news_100504.pdf Back
50
Ibid, p 4. Back
51
See Annex 5 for the full research report. Back
52
Children and young people aged 8-17, n = 513. Back
53
Agree strongly or agree slightly, ie top 2 box score. Top 2 box-or
bottom 2 box-scores are cited unless otherwise staged. Back
54
Ofcom Consumer Panel 2007. http://www.ofcomconsumerpanel.org.uk/information/documents/Children_and_the_Internet.pdf Back
55
The impact of government policy on social exclusion among working
age people: A review of the literature for the Social Exclusion
Unit in the Breaking the Cycle series (August 2004). Back
56
Futurelab: Beyond the Digital Divide Rethinking digital inclusion
for the 21st century (2007. Back
57
Young People and Media Survey-Ofcom 2007. Back
58
IPPR-Modernising with Purpose: A Manifesto for a Digital Britain. Back
59
See Annex 5a for the full research report and methodological overview.
Most of the children's/young people findings referred to in this
chapter are drawn from the research conducted for this review
(Children, Young People and Online Content) or Ofcom's Young People
and Media tracking study (April to September 2007). Back
60
Children aged 8-17. Back
61
Parents of children aged 8-17. Back
62
We asked first of all if they had come across harmful or inappropriate
material in the past six months and if they had, we asked the
open-ended question "What type of content was it?".
These findings therefore relate to self-reported harmful or inappropriate
material. Back
63
Ofcom communications tracking survey July to September 2007. Back
64
Get Safe Online Report 2007 www.getsafeonline.org Back
65
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2237211,00.html Back
66
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2236313,00.htmlarticle_continue Back
67
Social Networking: A qualitative look into behaviours, attitudes
and barriers, to be published Spring 2008. Back
68
OECD 2007 "Participative Web and User-Created Content: Web
2.0, Wikis and Social Networking" ISBN 978-92-64-03746-5,
page 95. Back
69
Get Safe Online Report 2007 www.getsafeonline.org Back
70
Social Networking: A qualitative look into behaviours, attitudes
and barriers, to be published Spring 2008. Back
71
OECD 2007 "Participative Web and User-Created Content: Web
2.0, Wikis and Social Networking" ISBN 978-92-64-03746-5 Back
72
All data in this section refer to parents of 8-17-year-olds and
children aged 8-17. Back
73
We asked first of all if they had come across harmful or inappropriate
material in the past six months and if they had, we asked the
open-ended question "What type of content was it?".
Thus these findings relate to self-reported harmful or inappropriate
material. Back
74
Caution-small sample sizes as 16% of all children say they came
across such material and 12% of parents say their child did. Back
75
Caution-small sample sizes. Back
76
Withers K. (2007) "Young people and social networking sites:
Briefing to guide policy responses" Institute of Public Policy
Research. Back
77
See Annex 1. Back
78
See Annex 2. Back
79
See Annex 4. Back
80
See Annex 2. Back
81
Such as BT, Virgin Media, Tiscali. Back
82
Directive 2000/31/EC. Back
83
SI 2003, No 213. Back
84
Defined in the Directive as where an information society service
is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication
network of information provided by a recipient of the service
or the provision of access to a communication network. Back
85
Self-organisation refers to individual corporate initiatives which
seek to address a public policy goal. Back
86
Article 16(1)(e). Back
87
This is a simple labelling framework supported by the Family Online
Safety Institute. Back
88
Restricted To Adults (RTA) is a label recognised by a broad range
of filtering products; it is intended for all content inappropriate
for minors, though mainly is use by pornography providers. Back
89
Neilsen Online, August 2007. See Annex 5. Back
90
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/coppa/07COPPA_Report_to_Congress.pdf.
Quotation is part of FTC report of public comments, but context
makes clear their agreement. Back
91
Parry Aftab, Filing in COPPA Rule Review 2005, June 27, 2005,
p 2 www.ftc.gov/os/comments/COPPArulereview/516296-00021.pdf Relates
to verification of children's age, but cost issues are also material
in relation to adults. Back
92
Implementing Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 12 July 2002. Back
93
Please see results of a feasibility study in Australia in 2006. Back
94
See below, "The promotion of industry self-regulation"
for more on this. Back
95
See Annex 2, for more details. Back
96
http://www.netalert.gov.au/ Back
97
"Cyberbullying, A whole-school community issue" is
a summary of the Department for Children, Schools and Families
(DCSF) Guidance for schools on preventing and responding to cyberbullying,
which was written in conjunction with Childnet International and
published in September 2007. This document seeks to give practical
advice to young people, their carers and school staff about the
issue of cyberbullying. http://www.digizen.org/cyberbullying/overview/ Back
98
An investigation into cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and
impact, and the relationship between age and gender in cyberbullying
A Report to the Anti-Bullying Alliance by Peter Smith, Jess Mahdavi,
Manuel Carvalho and Neil Tippett Unit for School and Family Studies,
Goldsmiths College, University of London. Back
99
An investigation into cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and
impact, and the relationship between age and gender in cyberbullying
A Report to the Anti-Bullying Alliance by Peter Smith, Jess Mahdavi,
Manuel Carvalho and Neil Tippett Unit for School and Family Studies,
Goldsmiths College, University of London. Back
100
Pew Internet & American Life Project Parents and Teens
Survey, Oct-Nov. 2006. Based on online teens [n=886]. Back
101
http://www.msn.co.uk/customercare/protect/cyberbullying/default.asp?MSPSA=1 Back
102
Cyberbullying Safe to Learn: Embedding anti-bullying work in
schools DCSF 2007 Back
103
http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DfES%200064%20200MIG479.pdf Back
104
Tackling Cyberbullying can be found at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/bullying Back
105
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2007_0168 Back
106
Becta's site provides extensive guidance and support for the
use of technologies in schools: www.becta.org.uk Back
107
http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DfES%200064%20200MIG479.pdf Back
108
http://www.childnet-int.org/kia/ Back
109
See http://www.police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/crime-disorder/child-protection-taskforce Back
110
See http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/operational-policing/ho_model.pdf?view=Binary Back
111
See http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/operational-policing/moderation.pdf?view=Binary Back
112
See www.imcb.org.uk/assets/documents/10000109Codeofpractice.pdf Back
113
Cyberbullying A whole-school community issue Back
114
Cyberbullying A whole-school community issue Back
115
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/onguide/atoz/m.shtml
for the BBC's online guidelines. Back
116
CBI/Google survey of Internet trends for business and consumers,
conducted by GfK NOP November 2006. Back
117
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/preview/phoenix.zhtml?c=105317&p=irol-pressArticle&ID=1052447&highlight= Back
118
IAB is the Internet Advertising Bureau-the trade body for online
advertising. Back
119
http://www.iabuk.net/en/1/iabpwconlineadspendfiguresfirsthalf2007011007.mxs Back
120
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2767087.ece Back
121
Enders Analysis, UK Internet Advertising (April 2007). Back
122
DrivePM states on their home page that "We provide media
only from the top 250 web publishers". Back
123
http://www.nma.co.uk/Articles/25650/Sales+houses+agree+on+plan+to+protect+against+rogue.html Back
124
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/netmusic/story/0,,1591012,00.html Back
125
Adsense is the Google programme in which publishers can sign up
to take Google adverts on their website. These are similar to
the search listing adverts but instead of appearing beside natural
search results, they appear on targeted websites. Back
126
Google's dominance of paid search is even greater in France and
Germany-taking 85% of market revenues-Enders Analysis, European
Internet Advertising Trends (June 2007). Back
127
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc9603c2-7dcf-11dc-9f47-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1 Back
128
Nielsen//Netratings-"At home" data excluding Internet
applications. Back
129
DataMonitor, The Outlook for Social Networks (September
2007). Back
130
Forbes, Your Tube, Whose Dime?, 28 April 2006. Back
131
http://revver.com/about/ Back
132
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6305957.stm Back
133
A unique audience is defined by Nielsen as the total number of
unique persons that have visited a website or used an application
at least once in the specified reporting period. Persons visiting
the same website or using the same application more than one time
in the reporting period are only counted once. Back
|
