Labour deputy leader Lucy Powell said Britain’s election laws have not kept pace with social media, as officials consider new rules affecting online platforms during campaigns.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Britain’s ruling Labour Party is calling for new election-related restrictions on social media platforms, arguing that current laws have not kept pace with how voters receive information during campaigns.
Lucy Powell, Labour’s deputy leader, promoted the proposal Sunday while discussing the party’s push for the Representation of the People Bill. The measure is intended to address online content during elections, including material the government describes as misinformation, disinformation and deepfakes.
Powell, a close ally of Andy Burnham, the former mayor of Manchester and Britain’s likely next prime minister, said social media now plays a major role in shaping what voters see. Burnham recently entered the House of Commons after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s poor showing in May’s local elections, according to the submitted material.
Speaking to LBC, Powell said election law must reflect the influence of online platforms.
“Millions of people get their news from social media, yet our laws haven’t kept pace,” Powell said.
She said voters are increasingly influenced by algorithm-driven feeds rather than traditional broadcasts.
“The biggest influence on what many voters see during election campaigns is not a TV news bulletin, it’s social media feeds decided by opaque algorithms, where falsehoods, deepfakes and co-ordinated mis and disinformation can spread at alarming speed, with real-world consequence,” Powell asserted.
Powell said freedom of expression remains “fundamental” to British democracy, but argued that the government also has a responsibility to ensure voters can make decisions based on accurate information.
Her proposal would extend some restrictions that already apply to British broadcasters during the final period before elections, known as “purdah.” Those rules include limits on reporting about election issues on polling day until after polls close. Broadcasters are also required to provide equal time to candidates in order to maintain a balanced campaign environment.
The push comes after UK Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy announced she would leave Elon Musk’s X platform and said the government department she leads would do the same.
Nandy said X had shifted away from its original purpose.
She described it as a “platform originally designed for free speech and expression now favours abuse and misinformation over meaningful debate.”
Nandy later said the platform “isn’t healthy for our democracy or our communities and I don’t want to support it.” She said she would continue using Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn.
The debate over online speech and election rules also follows warnings from YouTube that British users may see their content affected by proposed government rules.
According to submitted reports, the government is considering requirements that would direct social media companies to prioritize “trusted” news sources such as the BBC over independent media. Critics have cited longstanding accusations of bias against the broadcaster and past controversies over the accuracy of its reporting.
YouTube warned that such rules could harm independent creators and digital publishers. In a statement cited by Breitbart, the platform said the proposal would reduce the visibility of smaller outlets and creators.
“Mandating prominence for established media networks would push the UK’s diverse mix of independent journalists, educators, and digital-first businesses down the line,” YouTube said.
The government’s reported plan to elevate “trusted” outlets follows earlier reporting that officials were considering pressure on platforms to boost legacy media organizations, including the BBC, over independent publishers and creators.
The proposals place social media regulation at the center of Britain’s election-law debate, as Labour officials argue that online platforms need stricter rules during campaigns while critics warn that such policies could limit independent voices and alter what voters are able to see.
Original article
Comments