UN Geneva - Multimedia Newsroom : OHCHR Press Conference

Good morning, everyone.

To those of you in the room and online.

[Other language spoken]

I think we can go ahead and start.

I'm very pleased today to have with me Peggy Hicks, who's the Director of our Thematic and Special Procedures Division, which means that she leads our Policy Research on a lot of topical issues that that you all cover.

You should have by now received the press release together with the guidelines on protection of children online.

You should have received this in your e-mail.

You will also receive, or you should have already received a video message from the High Commissioner on this as well.

So I'll briefly introduce the topic, read out a bit of the press release, and then I'll pass the floor to Peggy.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Volcker Turk has called for more robust measures by both States and tech companies to make online platforms safer for children, insisting on effective regulation, oversight and accountability.

The digital world that connects children to learning, community and creativity also exposes them to real risks to their safety, to their privacy and to their well-being.

Online harms to kids safety, privacy and well-being are not innate or inevitable.

They result from design choices and business practises that undermine safety, including addictive design features such as infinite scroll, autoplay and persistent notifications from apps.

Enhancing the protection of children online is an urgent priority that we need to make sure not only gets done, but that it gets done right.

To ensure the approaches to these complex issues are grounded in human rights, we have issued a set of guidelines to enhance children's safety online and protect their rights.

And I'll pass the floor to Peggy now to talk you through those guidelines, Peggy.

[Other language spoken]

Now, glad to be able to talk to this, what we see as, as Ravina has said, is as an urgent priority, but one that is complex, where there isn't a quick fix.

And we need to to really be thoughtful about what will deliver the best results for for kids and for all of us.

So we're sharing these guidelines that are intended really as a contribution to this discussion on how to protect children online effectively.

They respond to the huge interest in addressing online harms to children, which are spurring debates and a host of regulations across the globe.

As our partner organisation UNICEF has documented, there are up to 40 different countries that are looking at, you know, how to handle these issues of child online safety in a different way, including by considering age verification and, and bans on, on children of certain ages.

Given what's at stake, it's really important that we get this right.

From our perspective, that really means that we have to look at both what we need States and what we need companies to do and ask both of them to act responsibly in terms of how they respond to these challenges.

And the key here is not that not to to avoid doing something that will have a profound impact, That's OK.

But let's make sure we're really understanding what those impacts are and looking for things that will really do what we want, which is to minimise the risk the maximum extent possible, but still protect the value that can be there for for all of us and to protect the rights of kids online as well.

For too long, social platforms and apps have not met this responsibility.

By fully understanding the risks that platforms pose and taking the steps to address those harms, often they prioritise their user base, expansion or engagement rather than the well-being of kids.

Now, as we've seen, governments are stepping in to regulate, but too often the approaches that have been taken focus on limiting who can access the platforms.

But that can leave behind platforms with problematic design and features that can still harm kids and in fact all of us.

For regulations to be effective, a one stop and done approach isn't going to work.

We need more than those quick fixes.

The message to the companies that we want to share now is that they really face a choice.

Change how their platforms are designed and operated to better protect children's rights and safety, or be forced to do so through increasingly restrictive legislation, jury verdicts and regulatory fines.

For governments, the focus needs to not only be on showing that they're doing something, taking some action, but also to secure the best outcomes while protecting children's rights.

That means that they need to take a 360 degree approach, looking not only at issues on who can be on which platforms, but also how those platforms are designed, what guardrails are in place for the age verification they they require, what ongoing due diligence and reporting they want companies to have to do, and how we make sure all of those steps are actually working for kids.

And that means not sitting back and legislating and assuming things are going to work, but being willing to monitor and report on what's happening and to make adjustments based on what we learn.

We don't have all the answers in the space and I think it's really important to recognise that upfront.

We need to keep our eyes on the prize.

The goal, like we see in many aspects of the digital space, is that we want to preserve the benefits that we see from social platforms while ensuring that they're truly safe for our kids.

We don't have the best, the secret sauce.

That's what's going to deliver those best results, and that's why I said, as I said, we need to collect the evidence and adapt quickly to what we learn, a need that's all the more essential given the evolving nature of the information environment.

We're talking a lot about social media apps, but obviously part of what comes into this conversation is the advent of AI and the the fact that AI and the use of chat bots and other tools will really change the way that these issues play out for many children as well.

We do have good ideas based on the risks we currently see though, about how best to address them.

And that brings us back to the guidelines that we've released today, 10 steps that will really look at how we can make sure that we're bringing human rights into this equation.

And we remain doggedly focused on what will best protect kids and their rights and the documents in front of you.

So I won't go through it all, but there are really 1010 steps that we've recommended.

The first and one of the most important is that we have to look at the design side as well.

As I said, it's not enough to leave behind a platform that is flawed because people will still get to it one way or another.

And it doesn't really solve the problem for the 16 and above or whoever still remains on it.

So focus on design of platforms, the features that we know are harmful and go after them.

We also need to make sure that whatever we do, child rights are guiding us in what we do.

That's the second point.

The Third Point is this issue around data and privacy.

This is something that's that's quite important because one of the things we're we're concerned about is children's data and privacy.

But sometimes the way we legislate around this doesn't really take that into account.

The fourth point is we really need to understand this problem better.

And that requires human rights due diligence and looking and requiring child rights impact assessments to ensure that we know what harms we're trying to address and that we target the regulations that we put in place to those harms.

The fifth point is that age verification, while necessary, can be a trap as well.

We need to make sure that we're putting in place the guardrails, make it be done right.

There are many risks to some of the methods that are being used.

Some of them have been shown to be discriminatory.

Many of them use third party providers where data and and information may not be as secure.

And we've seen breaches in that regard.

So we need to make sure that the age verification approaches are reliable and safe for everybody.

The sixth point is that we need to make sure that we're targeting what the real problems are and really go after the things that we know are doing the harm to kids.

So I mentioned issues around and, and Ravina did as well around the the way that platforms are designed and the algorithmic use and advertisement and collection of data and tools and design features that make platforms unsafe.

Let's make sure we go after those things and target what we do to address them as well.

The seventh point, and this is one that really is important but is lacking in the way that a number of jurisdictions are looking at this issue.

We really do need to talk to kids about this and understand from them where where they see the risks and what will actually address their needs in the most effective way, in a way that protects their rights.

And part of that is really understanding that kids actually do rely on the Internet and on social media to protect their own rights in a variety of ways.

Think of a child living in an abusive home.

You know what, what are we offering to them when we when we take broad based steps?

So we do need to talk to kids and make sure that we understand where they see the threats and sometimes they'll see things earlier than we do and, and address it.

The eighth point is that we need transparency.

We need reporting on what's happening in the space because as I said, we'll need to really look at what's happening and rely on it to make further progress.

And that leads to the 9th point, which is the need for oversight and accountability.

We need to make sure that whatever happens here doesn't just remain those reports happened and then nothing happens in reply.

So we need remedies when when things go wrong and we need to make sure that we have in place reliable and credible oversight.

And then finally, as I've emphasised, we need to collect the evidence that we, that we get and we need to listen to what we find out about what works and what doesn't and be willing to admit, no, we've, you know, perhaps not developed the perfect piece of legislation.

We need to go back and iterate and change and make it really address the problems most effectively.

And we all need to learn from each other, obviously, because this is a global concern and it will play out in different ways in different jurisdictions.

But we'll also, I hope, be able to learn from each other as, as we go forward to, to tackle these problems.

So I'll close with that.

Thanks, Peggy, over to you.

Any questions in the room first?

[Other language spoken]

The the report mentions micro targeting of of children with data collection and and advertising.

What, what is, what's going on there?

[Other language spoken]

What, what depths is this?

Is this going into to to exploit data?

Is this to to to try and sell things to to children or what's their parents?

Sorry, I'll start over.

So we'll be on, we'll have it.

So I, I, I'm said that, you know, it's a, it's a deep technical issue about how these design features are built in and how best to address them.

So, you know, we can get back to you with further details on exactly what it takes to address some of the design problems that we've identified.

But the issue here with micro targeting is, is it is the, the massive amount of data that's collected and then what you're able to do with that data.

And we've seen this, of course, with micro targeting on social media platforms, even doing things that, you know, are, you know, explicitly racist in terms of looking for certain zip codes and then being able to target certain features or advertisements based on that.

One would think that's bad enough for the way it plays out across the entire environment of social media.

But the reality is with kids, they're so much more vulnerable.

So every piece of data you get on a child can be used in ways that, you know, spur them towards towards certain obviously certain products, but also obviously certain content that can have a really negative impact on them.

And that's the type of thing where if we wanted to, we could build in more controls around those things specifically based on age or, or more generally within the platforms.

And So what we want to see is a regulatory approach that not only says, you know, we don't want kids there, but for the kids that are going to be there, let's make sure that it's safer by putting some guard rails around the use of things like Margaret micro targeting.

Thanks, Peggy.

Any other questions in the room first?

[Other language spoken]

Yeah, Hi, this is Christiana with the German press agency.

You are mentioning Australia or it's mentioned in the press release as a, as a lead in, in regulating social media.

Would you say they they have done it right?

Or is there any other country where where you would say they've got it right?

Because I think what you are saying is not, you know, is what other experts have said too.

It's not enough to just put the burden on families to to make sure that their kids don't have access.

Do you do you see that any country has has done right and would be a shining example for others?

[Other language spoken]

I, I think part of the the problem with the the question though, as well is that I'm not sure we know what right is in this space right.

And I think we have to be quite, you know, really recognise that and be somewhat humble about the fact that what we need to do is we need to take, you know, the, the right types of steps that we think will deliver the best results.

But then we have to be willing to, to really evaluate it.

And that's one thing I really do like about the Australian model, is that they put in place something that they thought would work.

And now the E safety commissioner in Australia is really reporting on, huh, you know, some of the features aren't working as well as we wanted to.

They've seen circumvention and they're looking at ways to address some of those issues.

So that that approach I think is an important part of the way Australia has has moved forward and something that we do support.

And you know, one of the things that I think we focus on with what's happened there is the, the fact that in Australia, there's also, it's not just, you know, what's talked about a lot is the blanket ban, but they are also doing work looking directly at platform design.

And there's an investigation ongoing with regards to some of the major platforms.

So that tandem approach of looking at at one side of the equation while also saying, well, if we actually had safer platforms, we may not need a blanket ban.

That makes sense as well for the reason that we've said.

I think there there are concerns about jumping in with with broad approaches without doing those additional steps.

And so as much as people point to the Australian model, they don't always look at the full scope of what Australia has done.

So we really want to make sure that there that there isn't.

I don't think there is a gold standard yet for the best way to do this.

I think we have to learn from each place that's doing it and try to find the better models.

Brazil is a country that we point to that has looked at this issue seriously and has really looked at the design side of things that I was discussing with your colleagues and, and that example is a good one.

Switzerland, for example, is also looking at it from that perspective for now.

But there's so many countries exploring this in different ways that we're going to have to keep a real eye on it to to try to answer the question better about what is the right approach and make sure we deliver something that really achieves for everyone.

And again, let's ask the kids as well.

Let's go back to children about what's working for them.

One of the concerns we raise is that when you when you put in place bands, you may succeed in getting, you know, a large portion of kids off of platforms, but some kids will circumvent and that percentage can be quite high as as Australia, you know, some of the data around Australia has shown.

And when that happens, the ways in which that is being done can actually expose kids to greater risk because they're using technology that exposes their data in different ways.

And they're sometimes reaching platforms that may not have as many controls in place as the ones that we're, we're already trying to, you know, the biggest ones that we're targeting now.

So, you know, we need to to really look at that side of the equation as well.

Thanks, Peggy.

I've got Robin in the room on the platform.

If anybody has questions, please put your hands up.

But Robin, thank you.

So if these, if these tech companies and their and their current model is, is profitable and the the platforms are, are doing well, how do you go about persuading them to change what they're doing?

If you know, as far as they're concerned, what they're, what they're doing from their point of view, it might very well be be working just fine.

[Other language spoken]

And obviously I think we've seen a real change in the regulatory environment where for a while companies felt like they were under pressure and had to sort of say, yes, we're looking at these problems and we're moving forward on it.

I, the Facebook files were a moment where some of these issues were exposed that within Facebook, they had data on some of the negative impacts to, to kids.

And it, it was a big story at the time.

But we're here I don't know how many years later, several years later and the problems haven't been, haven't been solved.

So it's a, it's a good question, but what's interesting in this space in particular, and perhaps we'd like to see it in a broader range of issues, but with regards to child safety, there is an overwhelming movement by, by the public to, to want more to be done in this space.

And, and that is, I believe putting substantial pressure in this space such that jurisdictions that are very regulatory adverse, which I think 1 can properly say that the US is in that space at this stage with regards to tech regulation, the issues around child safety are those that everybody kind of agrees we need to do something.

The question is, you know, what will work best.

So I do think both the fact that, you know, people that work at tech companies and those that lead them and those that regulate have kids too.

So they see these problems pulling out and the the public demand are big factors.

And as I mentioned, there are growing other incentives, including the way that these issues are being taken up in the courts, where the courts are starting to look at these design features, as I mentioned as well, and finding that companies could be liable on that side, plus the regulatory environment.

I mentioned Australia's looking at some of those issues now, but also the EU, which has taken a lot of action in this area.

And I should have mentioned it earlier in terms of some of the areas where there are, you know, very sort of considered and thoughtful approaches around the design side as well.

When those other pressures come into play, I think we see an environment in which we could get some strong and and effective legislation in the space.

Thanks, No further.

Robin has a follow up.

I don't see anything on the platform.

[Other language spoken]

The the report mentions the word addiction and that seems to come into the picture quite a lot is do you think that's a framework through which we might increasingly see social media and particularly social media with regards to to children, that we might increasingly see it through?

That lens of addiction, most things which are known to be addictive in nature have sort of guide rails around them into like gambling, smoking, drinking, you know, there are restrictions and age limitations.

So do do you think we might begin to see social or child use of social media more through that, through that lens of addiction than we currently do?

So the issue of addiction for children and for all of us with regards to the use of social media, the continuous scroll as as one of the, the aspects of this is something I think is of grave concern.

I've sat in rooms with health professionals who really think that this is an important issue for us to look at more deeply.

I also think it's one of the areas that we really do need more evidence and more information to know exactly how to address.

Because there's also, I think some very good evidence that points to the fact that social media is.

There's a recent study that shows that there's really AU curve here where it's dangerous at 2 ends of the spectrum, both overuse, so the addictive type of use that that we're talking about.

But also, you know, people that don't have access are actually face some real harms by not being able to to use social media and the Internet in different ways.

And that there may well be within this space A reasonable medium that that works both for kids and and for others.

So I think we need to look more at that issue and to understand when addiction arises, what are the best replies.

So that's also something that even if addiction isn't the, the underlying cause and problem that we should address, that doesn't mean we can't take steps to, to take on the problems that emerge for people who do have the, you know, who do become addicted or have problems with it.

So we, we should target our responses to that harm and not assume that it means that we have to have it across the board approach to addiction.

But obviously the issue of addiction is one of those that the courts have taken up.

It's something that has found at least one jury to, to see that it's a a real problem and that's something that a company could be held liable for.

So I'm sure we'll hear a lot more about it going forward.

And I think it's it's worthy of that attention.

And we we just need to look at what does it mean, how much evidence do we have and how best to address it.

Great, thank you.

Peggy, are there any further questions in the room?

I don't see any on the platform.

Right.

Well, this is an issue that isn't going anywhere and as Peggy said, there is no gold standard.

There's a lot of learning to be done and adjustments to be done.

Feel free to reach out on this issue or anything related to AI tech business and we can try to put you in touch with Peggy.

She is around for any further interviews or questions that you might have.

There is one and I'll also put in a plug for the fact that she couldn't be with us today, but we have a new chief of our digital tech and human rights section, Wafa Ben has seen who's who's also available to, to take out some of these issues and in great depths across the the spectrum of the work that the office is doing in the space.

There is one more question.

[Other language spoken]

Yes, thank you very much for taking my question.

My question is, Miss Hicks, this conversation has been going on for years.

Isn't it weird that just now the human rights agency takes note of this issues and also why again putting the burden on families when in fact it's the companies that are designing this product and up to now the human rights agency never paid attention or compare.

You often are invited to do innovation tourism of expenses paid by this tech companies in Silicon Valley.

So how do you explain that how useless all this is?

Thanks for your question, Maya.

We're not coming late to this in any sense.

We've been doing work on this issue and we can send you some of the links to the many reports that we've done that have pointed to these issues, have have made recommendations on these issues in in a variety of context.

Reports on the right to privacy over the years.

We've actually have documented the number of reports that have been done by the special procedures and our office.

And there are literally 100, you know, more than 100 reports focusing on these issues.

The special rapporteurs on freedom of expression have focused on this, the, the special, the independent expert on older person.

So it's, it's out there.

We've done a lot of work on this.

What we tried to do in this particular report is address what's really happening right now.

So it's, it is something that, yes, the issue has been around.

I, I, I myself pointed back to the, the fact that, you know, since the Francis Haugen in the Facebook files there, there's been a lot of talk around child safety online and there's a lot that's been done with regards to sexual abuse material and other things.

[Other language spoken]

And that has led to a real rise and a growing trend to legislate in the space.

So we wanted to pull together what we've learned over the work that we've done for many years and come up with some guidance that we think would be helpful.

So that's, that explains why we're doing it now.

I really want to push back on the, on the contention that we're arguing to put the burden on families.

In fact, we are doing exactly the opposite.

It's very clear in the work that we've done that we are saying governments have a responsibility and companies have a responsibility and we're calling for strict regulation, for more regulation of these issues by companies with regards to their design, mandating child impact assessments.

So really looking at placing that burden on companies.

And we'll, the 9th point in the guidelines, as I said, is oversight and accountability.

We have to make sure that not only do we put those rules in place, but they would hold old companies to account for them.

But that burden does fall in government.

So we're also pushing back and saying no, it's not children and their parents that that should have the responsibility here.

Obviously parents, I'm one myself, do have some responsibility with regards to this.

But we really need governments to regulate in the right way and we need companies to do what they can and are are forced to do through legislation to make to make these safest, these places safer for everybody.

And I certainly don't know what the comment about tourism to, to California is.

We we don't go there frequently at all.

And and when we do, we do it with a distinct purpose to achieve specific rights for results for human rights.

[Other language spoken]

I'd be happy to send you a lot of links to what's been done throughout the system on children and digital safety, the ones that Peggy mentioned and also the CRC, the Committee on the Rights of the Child came out with a general comment on this as well.

The special report on the sale of children has been engaged on this.

And one of the reasons why we felt it was important to put these guidelines out now is some 40 countries, according to a UNICEF report, some 40 countries are now actively considering a ban on social media for children.

So we felt that there's an acceleration in the pace at which this is being considered.

And there needed to be some guidelines to ensure that the considerations, the consultations, the legislative processes, the implementation and the assessment post implementation are grounded in human rights.

That's why this is particularly timely now.

But I don't need to tell you that you cover these issues on a daily basis.

I think that's all we have.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you everyone for joining.

Have a good afternoon.

[Other language spoken]

OHCHR Press Conference - Child safety online