Experts tell MPs Big Tech is doing the bare minimum on banned content
Parliamentary testimony suggests bypassing restrictions on banned online content is simple, with experts saying major platforms are not doing enough to stop it.
According to The Register, online safety experts told Parliament's Communications and Digital Committee that large technology companies are doing the bare minimum to keep banned content away from users. The outlet reports that witnesses described getting around those restrictions as easy, likening the effort to looking up a word in a thesaurus.
The hearing put a spotlight on the gap between what platforms say they do and how well their safeguards work in practice. The Register frames the criticism as aimed at companies broadly, and it presents the experts' views as accusations made in evidence rather than as settled findings.
The committee scrutinizes government and digital policy, and it uses sessions like this one to gather evidence from outside witnesses. The testimony adds to a wider debate over whether existing rules are being enforced strongly enough.
Key questions about how the claims were tested, and what companies plan to change in response, remain open.
Background
The United Kingdom's Online Safety Act, passed in 2023, set out duties for online services to reduce the spread of illegal content and to protect children from harmful material. Responsibility for enforcing it sits with Ofcom, the country's communications regulator, which has published codes of practice describing the steps platforms are expected to take. Those steps can include content moderation systems, reporting tools, risk assessments and, for some services, age checks designed to keep younger users away from adult material.
Parliamentary committees have long served as a venue for testing whether laws work in practice. Their hearings bring in researchers, campaigners and industry figures, and their conclusions can shape later legislation or prompt regulators to act. Evidence sessions are not trials. Witnesses offer opinion and experience, and committees rarely resolve disputed claims on the spot.
The broader problem is familiar across the internet. Platforms combine automated detection, human review and user reports, and no combination catches everything. Determined users can also turn to methods such as virtual private networks, alternative sites or coded language to evade filters. Critics argue that the weakest link is often the systems that check identity or age. Supporters counter that perfect enforcement is impossible and that regulators should judge companies on whether they make reasonable, documented efforts. That tension between rules that demand outcomes and rules that demand process runs through most online safety debates.
Why it matters
If experts are right that circumventing restrictions is simple, the consequences reach beyond any single platform. Rules that look strong on paper may offer limited protection if the tools to evade them are easy to find. That matters for parents, schools and anyone who relies on these services to keep banned or harmful material out of reach, particularly children who may be curious and unsupervised.
It also matters for the companies involved. A finding that they are doing the bare minimum can invite tougher oversight, more prescriptive codes and larger penalties, and it shapes how the public and investors judge whether platforms can be trusted. For regulators, the testimony tests whether enforcement focuses on visible compliance steps or on real-world results, a choice with major implications for how the law is applied.
There is a civil-liberties dimension as well. Stronger filtering and identity checks can collide with privacy and free expression, and each new barrier can fall unevenly on lawful users. Any push to tighten controls will need to answer those concerns, not just the question of whether current measures are enough.
What to watch
Watch whether the committee publishes a report or recommendations that build on this evidence, and whether ministers or the regulator respond with specific proposals. Look for any enforcement action from Ofcom under the Online Safety Act, and for changes to its published codes of practice. Pay attention to how platforms describe their own safeguards in public statements, and whether independent testing of circumvention claims follows. Each of these steps would show whether the criticism leads to concrete change or fades after the hearing.
Viewpoints
Commentary from our columns: three angles on this story.
The Rulebook privacy, safety and regulation
The question at the heart of this hearing is not whether a rule exists but whether it does anything. A law requiring platforms to keep illegal material from users is only as strong as the controls behind it, and testimony that those controls can be sidestepped quickly should worry anyone who writes or enforces rules for online services. Regulators need harder questions about evidence: what was tested, how often, and against which standard. Process-based duties are a reasonable starting point, but they become hollow if companies can show paperwork while users show the workaround. The rulebook should reward measurable protection, not just documented intent. At the same time, any response must protect privacy. Identity checks and filtering tools collect data and can block lawful speech, so the fix is not simply more gates. Better design, independent audits and clear reporting duties would give the public a truer picture of what is being done. Parliament has a chance to press for that standard now, before the next wave of rules is written.
The Skeptic open questions and weak points
Before accepting the headline that Big Tech is doing the bare minimum, it is worth asking what the bare minimum would look like. Expert testimony is valuable, but a hearing is not a controlled test. Claims that circumvention is as easy as using a thesaurus are vivid, and vivid comparisons travel further than careful methods. Which restrictions were tested, which tools were used, and whether the results were repeated are the questions that decide whether this is a systemic failure or a set of isolated gaps. There is also a tension in the criticism. If every workaround is trivial, any filter will look inadequate, and the bar may be set impossibly high. Critics and regulators need to agree on what success means before judging performance. None of this excuses weak safeguards. It simply means the strongest version of this argument will come from transparent data, not a memorable analogy. The committee would do well to ask for exactly that.
The User what changes for people who use it
For most people, online safety rules stay invisible until something goes wrong. A parent trying to keep a child away from harmful material may rely on the platform's controls, the settings on a device and a bit of luck. If experts are right that those barriers are thin, families end up doing more of the work themselves. That means learning how filters, age checks and reporting tools actually function, and staying involved in those conversations at home. It also means recognizing that the strongest protections are often the ones users never see. Better defaults, clearer settings and simpler reporting would change daily life far more than a new policy paper. Users also deserve plain explanations of what a platform can and cannot block. A promise of safety that quietly depends on individual vigilance is not the same thing as safety. Lawmakers and companies alike should judge their work by whether an ordinary person, on an ordinary day, finds it harder to stumble into what was meant to be kept out.