My Lords, we had a pretty extensive future-proofing debate in Committee, which I was sadly unable to take part in, but I start
this debate with a sinking feeling about the scope of the Bill. This amendment relates to the metaverse in particular.
In metaverse or game-type settings, users interact in a visual or audio environment that is wholly or in part created by the service provider. An analogy might be that the service provider supplies an immersive stage environment for people to act upon, complete with scenery, computer-generated props and characters, some of which could be harmful. The environment created or enabled by the service provider could itself be harmful to children and even adults—for instance, a World War II concentration camp, a sex shop or a Ku Klux Klan rally; at least one online game has allowed people to play the role of an Auschwitz camp guard.
I am particularly influenced by a report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Horizon Worlds Exposed, and the research for it, which was carried out by the online CSEA covert intelligence team. This may have been cited earlier but they found that minors are routinely harassed and exposed to adult content on Meta’s flagship virtual reality social network, Horizon Worlds. The research follows Meta’s announcements that Horizon Worlds would be opening up to 13 to 17 year-olds, showing that it is already failing to prevent minors accessing mature content, despite a supposed ban on them accessing its VR applications.
5.30 pm
I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the OCCIT report, which is concerning. There are many more lurid stories. There was a Mail Online story— I hasten to add that I am not a regular reader of the Mail Online—with the great headline, “Chilling chats self-styled ‘assassin’ had with AI bot ‘girlfriend’ who encouraged him to kill the late Queen at Windsor Castle”. We want to avoid such lurid headlines, if possible, but there is a serious point behind this. The Bill acts on user-generated content, but it might not catch the features provided as part of the service, even though it covers user interactions in that environment. Recent government amendments proposed by the Minister try to catch bots, but they do not encompass the static components I have described.
Such issues ought to be caught by the general child safety duty. Possibly, adults should be allowed to use the user empowerment tools in Clause 12 to protect themselves from the risks that Parliament has identified, if they arise from such features—at least, they should be made aware of the potential risks. The illegal content duty might apply there, but there would be difficulties with what is described as “mens rea” or intent. It would be good to get a clear statement from the Government at the Dispatch Box.
When I tried to put down an amendment that attempted to include the provider environment, I discovered from the Public Bill Office that it was out of scope. I think that that means that there are big questions marks over the Bill in that sense. All I could get down was this amendment to include
“user generated or controlled characters and objects with which user characters interact in visual or audio environments within which users interact”.
That speaks volumes about what is excluded from the Bill, and it makes the point that I am trying to make: provider content, such as anti-Semitic slogans on
backdrops in an immersive environment, is not entirely within the scope of the Bill. My amendment, as drafted, will not tackle that issue, because I am not able to put down an amendment which might.
I believe that there is a case to answer by the Government. Things are moving very fast—I entirely understand that it is difficult to keep up, in a sense, with the changes—but the metaverse should not be beyond the scope of the Bill and nor should the environments created by it. If we do not include that kind of provider environment in its scope, we will fail our children and vulnerable adults and we will be falling down on the job. We have waited five years to get the Bill through, so to knowingly pass a Bill without the right provisions and the proper future-proofing would be grossly negligent. I beg to move.