BBC's Roblox Disinformation Chapter 2: That Interview with an Alleged Sexual Predator
Julian Knight MP, who was interviewed in a BBC Radio 4 program containing disinformation about Roblox, now has a police investigation against him for allegations of sexual assault
On December the 8th, Julian Knight MP had his whip privileges revoked in addition to being suspended from the Conservative Party as a result of a Metropolitan Police investigation into several claims of sexual assault against him.
Several reports have highlighted that some female Conservative MPs were uncomfortable working with him whilst knowing these allegations.
With these allegations in mind, let’s revisit his interview with Hayley Hassall from File on 4, a radio program purporting to investigate current issues in the world.
NOTE: Some content will be borrowed from an earlier article regarding this radio program. You may read that article, which goes in-depth into several other criticisms of the radio program and its team here.
Knight only has a minor role in File on 4’s Roblox disinformation, with only 6 lines in the 37-minute program. Yet his role is profound, with some pieces of disinformation to add to a larger picture of deceitful manipulation.
Hayley Hassall, the presenter of the program introduces Julian Knight as
Chair of the [Digital,] Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and was one of the architects of the Online Safety Bill which is currently at the report stage. He says Roblox and other tech giants could have moved faster if they’d wanted to.
Fairly accurate, given that Knight was the Chair of the committee at that time. As to if large tech companies can move faster, given the enormous size of some of the companies concerned, it would be subjective to one’s opinion on how much financial and technological investment would be needed to achieve an “acceptable” standard. The Online Safety Bill outlines an “acceptable” standard and applies it to everyone, big and small.
Knight then begins to discuss how these tech giants could “move faster”, namely
KNIGHT: One of the main tenets of the online safety legislation and something that needs to happen is that you need to have very, very firm age assurance and age verification. There are ways in which, through algorithms that companies can fairly quickly tell whether or not someone is the age that they say they are.
Whilst yes, it is technically feasibly possible to create an algorithm to determine one’s age, there must be a dataset for these models to be trained on. Whilst these algorithms do exist, there remains some degree of inaccuracy which would be insufficient for gating access to content at certain age levels for children and would most likely not be classified as “very, very firm”.
Knight continues with his argument,
[contd.] Language modification moderators, for example, can do that through algorithms, so you can see if someone is really a child or is an adult. And also, you can ask people to put their face in a frame, and then that frame then will detect whether or not that person has an adult or child’s bone structure. At the moment, it seems to be that it’s still the Wild West when it comes to age verification and age assurance.
Language modification moderators do not exist, although detecting one’s age from their face is a very mature technology. Despite this, some users are understandably concerned with taking a photo of themselves and sending it to an unknown company, all to search the web or to get the best experience on Roblox?
Julian Knight makes a return towards the end of the program, describing how the Government will regulate interactions with social media companies and law enforcement. As with any witness involved in a criminal investigation:
KNIGHT: The law enforcement agencies rely very much on the goodwill of social media companies in order to get the right data and information or to pursue wrongdoers in that area.
Perhaps Knight should show some goodwill by co-operating with law enforcement agencies with their investigation instead of stonewalling the accusations against him.
Rather interestingly, Knight continues talking in the interview about the terms of conditions “decided” by the companies:
[contd.] However, apart from that, you’re relying on the terms and conditions of the individual companies themselves. These terms and conditions are decided by the companies. They are often overseen by boards of people who are themselves appointed by the companies, and when they’re reviewed by academics, these academics are often also appointed by the companies, so they’re very much marking their own homework. And that is, I think, a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Wouldn’t the Conservative Party, who chose Knight and then fired him, also be “a very unsatisfactory state of affairs”, much like the quagmire that he is right now? It’s almost as if groups can collectively decide what they want to do, within the law.
Often, these academics are not concerned with child safety regarding the Terms of Use of these companies, but rather privacy, which the Online Safety Bill will strip through de-facto requiring the adoption of age verification (usually through ID or credit card) for most Category 1 services unless users want to face the walled garden of a “child safe“ internet.
Knight then encourages regulators from around the world to collaborate together to stop what he deems to be “masses of harm and masses of abuse” (ironically, wanting the UK to collaborate with the EU despite their exit):
KNIGHT: We need the EU to come together with the UK, with American legislators and other parts of the world in order to come up with a framework in which these companies have to understand that they have skin in the game, they’re citizens in the global community as well, and they can’t imagine they’re just outside of that, that literally anything goes and that they have no responsibility for what goes on on our platforms, because at the moment, what we’re still seeing is masses of harm and masses of abuse, due to the fact that these companies are not taking the care that they ought to in order to protect the most vulnerable people in our society.
Yet Knight appears to know who started these allegations: a former staffer, who he previously had power over, seeking protection with the Police as Knight has allegedly not done what he “ought to”.
Julian Knight is not the only person involved with Roblox “child safety” that has been accused of being a sexual predator. Last year, Roblox YouTuber Benjamin Robert Simon was sued by Roblox Corporation with several allegations against him including “posted images of pornographic depictions of Roblox avatars and praises those who created them”. One victim of these incidents has spoken about, revealing that she was 12 when these incidents had occurred and provided verifiable evidence. The suit was settled, and the victim deleted her statements as a result of public harassment from the YouTuber’s supporters.
As for the fate of Knight, the investigation has only just started. Whether he will face trial or be protected as a result of his Member status remains uncertain.