From Climate Scepticism

By JOHN RIDGWAY

We love our children.

In fact, we love them so much that we rarely hesitate to weaponsize them, either literally by thrusting an AK47 into their arms and sending them off to fight the good fight, or by filling their heads with eco-anxiety and sending them out onto the streets to wave their ‘No Planet B’ placards. To paraphrase what my old boss would love to say in moments of corporate tenderness, they are our only asset. They are a precious commodity deserving of our finest nurturing – that is if we want them to do what is best for us. Which is why it is so important that they are not exposed to harmful pressures, by which I mean pressures harmful to the cause.

In a recent BBC article bemoaning the failure of TikTok to remove conspiracist material from its platform, the thoughts of Paul Scully MP, the minister for technology and the digital economy, were thrown into the ring, by dint of him mentioning the forthcoming Online Safety Bill. Just to remind you, this is a bill that was inspired by a number of tragic incidents in which minors came to harm as a direct result of dangerous online material to which they had been exposed. The bill is therefore very much focussed upon the protection of children and other vulnerable members of society. As such, its scope is very specific. According to the UK government’s guidelines it covers the following illegal material:

• child sexual abuse
• controlling or coercive behaviour
• extreme sexual violence
• fraud
• hate crime
• inciting violence
• illegal immigration and people smuggling
• promoting or facilitating suicide
• promoting self harm
• revenge porn
• selling illegal drugs or weapons
• sexual exploitation
• terrorism

In addition, the following legal but harmful material will be covered:

• pornographic content
• online abuse, cyberbullying or online harassment
• content that does not meet a criminal level but which promotes or glorifies suicide, self-harm or eating disorders

So what did Paul Scully say?

[He] told the BBC that the government’s proposed Online Safety Bill would guarantee that the responsibility of social media platforms to tackle disinformation was ‘taken seriously’.

Which causes me to ask in what way mere disinformation falls within the scope of anything I have just listed. It strikes me that what Paul Scully appears to be advocating would be nothing less than a blatant abuse of legislation. And the fact that the BBC was happy to quote Scully without challenging the obvious inappropriateness of his statement only adds to my concerns. Such concerns are also heightened when one considers the context in which the Paul Scully quote appeared. The TikTok video that had attracted the BBC’s ire featured a certain Dan Peña, referred to by the BBC as a “self-styled ‘business success coach’ with thousands of followers on social media”. Upon being interviewed by the BBC he supposedly doubled down on his ‘climate denial’ by making three statements:

• A changing climate is nothing new
• Climate change may not be the threat that scientists claim
• There is little to be achieved by the UK’s plans for Net Zero if nothing is done to reduce China’s emissions

Presumably, these are the sort of statements that the BBC categorises as disinformation, and it is why they thought it so appropriate to quote Paul Scully and his mentioning of the safeguards that the Online Safety Bill will introduce. Presumably, also, Dan Peña’s views are the sort of material that the BBC equates to child sexual abuse, inciting violence, terrorism or promoting and glorifying suicide, otherwise why invoke the Online Safety Bill as one of the legal instruments they expect to be called into play?

I have often said that the major threat posed by climate change may be the growing intolerance shown towards sceptical thinkers once such scepticism has been branded as unsupportable and dangerous. Indeed, I do think that we live in very worrying times in which dissidence is branded a health and safety issue befitting the application of duty of care legislation. And, as far as I can see, the only justification given for this is the simple introduction of the concept of ‘dangerous misinformation’.

We can all talk about dangerous misinformation and how it may impact the safety and welfare of our children. We could talk, for example, about the UK government’s initial insistence that the AstraZenica vaccine was perfectly safe and that claims of blood clots in young adults were being pushed by ‘ridiculous’ conspiracy theorists. We can talk about the encouragement to vaccinate children as young as five, even though there was no scientific justification other than it might better protect the adult population. And we can talk about the fact that the media and our education system have traumatised our children to the point that medical practitioners are now complaining of a significant increase in the numbers of children presenting with emotional and psychological disorders associated with eco-anxiety. I’m not sure about promoting or glorifying suicide, but I’m sure that online material that leads children to believe that they will not survive to adulthood cannot be helping. So why isn’t Paul Scully invoking the Online Safety Bill in that context? And where is the BBC in striving to take such material down from TikTok? It strikes me that they are far too busy helping stoke childhood fears.

The only reassurance that I can take away from any of this is that, despite the risk of unintended consequences, it should become immediately apparent to any court that the Online Safety Bill does not apply to the likes of Dan Peña. However, the fact that the UK’s minister for technology and the digital economy could entertain the idea that it does apply is a matter for grave concern. It is even more concerning that the UK Council for Internet Safety, in its practical guide for parents and carers, chooses to include ‘inaccurate or false information’ on its list of risks children may be exposed to. It is no wonder Scully is confused.

I asked above, where is the harm? Well, I certainly don’t see it in the freedom to challenge government policy, no matter how much we love our children. The internet is a dangerous place for them, as is the real world. But this is mainly because it is full of adults who seem to have forgotten how vulnerable and impressionable they were when they were growing up, or, if they do remember, now see such vulnerability as an opportunity. But abuse takes many forms, and I just wonder if the next generation will grow up to realise just how much freedom of thought had been taken away from them.

Postscript:

Upon reading this article, Mark Hodgson searched the Online Safety Bill, as currently drafted, and discovered within it Clause 141. This clause obligates Ofcom, an unelected body, to produce guidelines that will in effect determine the application of the Bill with respect to misinformation and disinformation. The Online Safety Bill does not identify misinformation and disinformation as harms to children, but then it doesn’t have to. The authority to make that call has been legally bestowed upon Ofcom. I don’t think this is an unintended consequence. I think the government knows exactly what it is doing.