UK Considers Forcing Social Media Firms To Prioritize Trusted News
5 134An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Britain is considering forcing social media companies to prioritize what the government called trusted news sources as part of its broader push to tighten regulation of the sector. The culture department said on Monday it was considering requiring platforms such as Meta's Facebook, Alphabet-owned YouTube and TikTok to make content from public service media -- including the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 -- and other trusted news providers easier to find in users' feeds and searches.
Boosting the visibility of regulated news providers could help tackle misinformation, particularly during crises, the government said. However, any move to influence how platforms rank content is likely to face scrutiny from the social media firms, which say such rules could override user choice and disadvantage other creators. The proposals form part of a broader overhaul of Britain's public service media system to help broadcasters compete with streaming platforms and shifting viewing habits. Ministers are also considering widening public service media status to include online-only providers, extending free-to-air protections for major sporting events to on-demand viewing, and consulting on a shift to internet-based TV from 2034 or 2044. "It is vital that we make sure that people have better access to trusted and accurate news and that our regulated public service media is seen and heard in the fierce battle against mis- and disinformation," culture minister Lisa Nandy said in a statement.
The move follows the UK's recently-announced ban on social media use for those under 16.
5 comments
Before someone says it (Score: 5, Informative)
by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday June 23, 2026 @11:06AM (#66205754)
I know what this looks like, the government wants to make sure you read its narrative on everything first.
And I'm sure it will be abused for that.
But there is actually another, more genuine, reason for wanting it. We have a huge problem with misinformation in the UK. Much of it coming from Russia, and the far right, and grifters. It's actually quite lucrative, and devastatingly effective.
It's 10 years since the Brexit vote today. The amount of misinformation is hard to comprehend. Even today, people still believe those lies. Even back then, we were decades into debunking some of them. One of the biggest liars, Boris Johnson, transitioned from publishing lies in newspapers to telling lies as Prime Minister. Misinformation became the most effective political strategy.
This probably isn't the right way to go about it, but I also find it hard to believe that e.g. Facebook can't label Russia trolls easily enough. Whenever information leaks from those sites, the fake Russian accounts are very easy to spot. Twitter had to remove their public location information because as soon as they enabled it everyone noticed that many of the top accounts were Russian, pretending to be European or American.
Re:Before someone says it (Score: 5, Insightful)
by allo ( 1728082 ) on Tuesday June 23, 2026 @12:14PM (#66205966)
The problem is, that it still is a bad move even with good intentions. Just think about how to realize it and then how to enforce it. I don't see any option without serious side effects. Defining "social media" and defining "trusted news" alone is a huge issue.
Would you consider Slashdot comments social media? What about the comments in some unimportant blog? Or what about blog authors themselves that are posting articles referring to each other without using the other blog's comment function? Does it change things, if the blog sends a track back or not?
While this is hard to define, the discussion about "trusted" opens the gates to a hell of flamewars.
When you're done with the definitions you need to think about enforcement, penalties, etc.. These things aren't straightforward either.
Re:Before someone says it (Score: 5, Insightful)
by korgitser ( 1809018 ) on Tuesday June 23, 2026 @11:32AM (#66205858)
Boris Johnson
That's the thing though. The biggest source of misinformation in ol' Blighty is Nr.10. Whether it's Blair, May, Johnson, Starmer, whoever. The face doesn't matter. The bullshit remains the same. It wasn't Russian disinformation that made Brexit happen, it was Britains own Farage. And now Great Britain is on track to be the first un-developed country in the West.
And this is where the West is at by now. The powers that be are at odds with truth, with their lies, incompetence, and corruption, so they redefine truth to mean whatever is convenient. 1984 was a field manual for them.
You can bet your ass that to be trusted, a news source has to keep quiet about inconvenient topics such as Gaza, Epstein, and government corruption. And so it is trusted then means that the government can trust the media to not rock the boat.
Re: Before someone says it (Score: 5, Interesting)
by newcastlejon ( 1483695 ) on Tuesday June 23, 2026 @12:35PM (#66206016)
It wasn't Russian disinformation that made Brexit happen, it was Britains own Farage.
Reform's leader in Wales was recently imprisoned [bbc.co.uk] for taking Russian bribes to push their talking points. Farage used to say the same kinds of things, and the only difference between Nathan Gill and Farage is that they could prove it. We do know, however, that he took five million from a Thailand-based crypto billionaire and that it's just a coincidence that Farage started promoting cryptocurrency shortly after. It's not an either/or situation.
Re:Before someone says it (Score: 5, Insightful)
by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Tuesday June 23, 2026 @11:24AM (#66205816)
No, but treating two wrongs as the same degree of wrongness is pretty dumb.