Product Not yet confirmed elsewhere 1 publisher2 min readPublished Aug 24, 2026, 3:04 PM PDT

A minister asked for an algorithm change, and the Online Safety Act has no line for it

After seven deaths on the A66, Luke Pollard told platforms to demote dangerous driving as well as delete it. TikTok answered with a takedown rate that measures something else.

The Product Desk

How we use AI Send a correction

Photograph accompanying A minister asked for an algorithm change, and the Online Safety Act has no line for it — Photo: bbc.co.uk

What happened

Defence Minister Luke Pollard told BBC Breakfast that platforms could take dangerous driving videos down today and adjust their algorithms so the material is not celebrated.
Two police officers and all five occupants of the car they had been pursuing died on the A66 near Middlesbrough on Saturday.
A TikTok account believed to belong to one of the five passengers had posted videos appearing to show dangerous driving, and they have since been removed.
Five teenagers died earlier this month in County Kildare after driving the wrong way down a motorway into an oncoming car.

Why it matters

constraint The removal duty is the only hook the government has described, so the demand about recommendation travels as ministerial pressure rather than as an obligation Ofcom can enforce.
decision Platforms now have to decide whether a moderation statistic is still an adequate reply, or whether they open up distribution data they have never had to publish.
precedent Once a minister ties the problem to paid views, creator payout rules become the next design surface a government can be expected to name.
contradiction A clip live for at least ten months before deletion sits badly beside a 99.8% proactive removal rate, which changes what that rate can be read to prove.

The two verbs in Pollard's sentence sit on different legal footings ^[2]. Removal is the one Downing Street pointed at, saying the culture secretary has been clear that footage should come down "in line with their legal obligations", with Ofcom holding the government's full backing to act against platforms that fail in their duties ^[7]. Ranking is the one he added, and the Act as described by the BBC does not put ranking anywhere: video featuring illegal activity is not necessarily illegal itself, and it falls to the platform to decide whether flagged content is unlawful and act accordingly ^[8]. The carve-outs are harder than vague. Footage of a person being killed is not automatically illegal unless a terrorist group is sharing it, or children can reach it ^[9]. A platform can therefore satisfy the removal duty in full and go on recommending the genre.

That is close to what TikTok's own answer describes, without intending to. The company says its policies prohibit content that could cause significant physical harm, including dangerous driving, and that between January and March 2026 it removed 99.8% of content taken down under those policies proactively ^[11]. The denominator there is removals, not uploads or impressions, so the number reports on its own moderation queue rather than on what was served to anyone. The residual works out at one removal in every five hundred that waited for someone else to flag it ^[18]. TikTok also accepts that a takedown is not a finding of illegality, and may reflect nothing more than its own terms and conditions ^[12].

The material BBC Verify examined shows why "not celebrated" is a ranking question rather than a legal one. A 94-second clip posted to the account in March 2025 showed a car being driven across footpaths and parkland in Ormesby, Middlesbrough, with Saddington in a rear seat ^[13]. Another, since deleted, appears to show a joyride with the speedometer reading 100mph, and later a different car set on fire ^[14]. Taken one at a time, each is an upload awaiting a judgement call. Taken together they are a format, and formats are what a recommender is for. Pollard's other line was the operative one: the companies know exactly what content is on their sites, and they know how their algorithms work ^[5].

Meta and X were contacted for comment and no response from either appears in the BBC's report ^[15]. That gap matters more than it looks, because TikTok at least has a figure to put on the table, even though the figure answers a question nobody in government asked.

What to watch

Whether Ofcom's next enforcement step names recommender systems rather than individual posts.
Whether the culture secretary identifies which specific Online Safety Act duty covers the promotion of lawful footage.
Whether TikTok, Meta or X publish reach figures for dangerous-driving clips instead of removal rates.

Clarity's read

What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.

Reality

Evidence58
Adoption32
Hype gap+34
Incentives72
Confidence55

Why these scores

Claim ledger

Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.

[1]
Defence Minister Luke Pollard called on social media companies to remove posts celebrating dangerous driving, after a viral trend showing people going the wrong way down roads.
ReportedSupportedSource: BBCView cited source
[2]
Pollard told BBC Breakfast on Monday: "Social media companies could take that down today, adjust their algorithms so it's not celebrated."
ReportedSupportedSource: Luke Pollard, via BBC BreakfastView cited source
[3]
On Saturday PC Tom Clough, 38, and PC Matthew Blades, 37, died when a Volkswagen Passat, which officers had been pursuing until seconds before, collided with their marked armed response car on the A66 near Middlesbrough; all five occupants of the Passat also died.
ReportedSupportedView cited source
[4]
A TikTok account believed to belong to one of the five passengers, 18-year-old Makai Saddington, shared videos appearing to show dangerous driving, which have since been removed.
ReportedSupportedView cited source
[5]
Pollard said of the platforms: "They know exactly what content is on their site, they know how their algorithm works."
ReportedSupportedSource: Luke PollardView cited source
[6]
Pollard said people post content to get views and that more views sometimes bring money, so there is a financial incentive to post outrageous content that gets more people watching it.
ReportedSupportedSource: Luke PollardView cited source
[7]
A Downing Street spokeswoman called the glorification of dangerous driving for clips and entertainment "utterly disgraceful", said the culture secretary has been clear that footage should be removed by platforms "in line with their legal obligations", and said Ofcom has the government's "full backing to take action" against those that fail in their duties.
ReportedSupportedSource: Downing Street spokeswomanView cited source
[8]
According to the Online Safety Act, video content featuring illegal activity is not necessarily illegal itself; it is up to the social network to decide whether flagged content is illegal and act accordingly.
ReportedSupportedSource: BBC's reading of the Online Safety ActView cited source
[9]
There are specific exceptions set out in the Online Safety Act that can be difficult to interpret; for example content showing someone being killed is not necessarily illegal unless it is being shared by a terrorist group and/or accessible to children.
ReportedSupportedSource: BBCView cited source
[10]
TikTok said its policies prohibit content that could cause significant physical harm, including dangerous driving, and that it is actively removing videos and accounts that break its rules, including the account believed to belong to Saddington.
ReportedSupportedSource: TikTokView cited source
[11]
TikTok said that between January and March 2026, 99.8% of the content it removed for violating those policies was taken down proactively.
ReportedSupportedSource: TikTokView cited source
[12]
While TikTok is taking some videos down, it is not necessarily because it has deemed them illegal; it may only be because they breach the firm's own terms and conditions.
ReportedSupportedSource: BBCView cited source
[13]
A video posted on the account in March 2025, since deleted, was analysed by BBC Verify: the 94-second clip showed a car driving on footpaths and parkland in Ormesby, Middlesbrough, with Saddington a rear-seat passenger.
ReportedSupportedSource: BBC VerifyView cited source
[14]
Another video posted by the same account, also since deleted, appears to show a joyride where a passenger is smoking with the speedometer showing 100mph, and later a different car is set on fire.
ReportedSupportedSource: BBCView cited source
[15]
The BBC said it had contacted Meta and X for comment; the report carries no response from either company.
ReportedSupportedView cited source
[16]
Earlier this month five teenagers were killed in a head-on collision in County Kildare, Ireland, after driving the wrong way down a motorway, hitting a car believed to be carrying a family heading to the airport for a holiday.
ReportedSupportedView cited source
[17]
The clip BBC Verify analysed was live for at least ten months: posted in March 2025 and deleted only after the crash, which cannot precede January 2026 given TikTok's citation of January-March 2026 removal figures.
DerivedSupported1 source— create a free account to open them
[18]
The share of TikTok's removals under those policies that was not proactive is 0.2%, or about one in every 500.
DerivedSupported1 source— create a free account to open them
[19]
Seven people died in Saturday's collision: two police officers and the five occupants of the Passat.
DerivedSupported1 source— create a free account to open them

Sources

1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.

bbc.co.uk
1 article · August 24, 2026
UK minister urges social media firms to remove dangerous driving videos

Ask Clarity

Have a question this piece left open? The answer comes from its reporting and claim ledger — nothing else.

Clarity analysis

How the coverage leans and what the record actually supports. Read the methodology

Perspective Coverage

How much of the coverage speaks to builders, operators and investors. It measures emphasis, not whether the story is right.

Builder

For anyone building ranking or recommendation systems, the operative ask in this cluster is not a takedown request but a demotion request: Pollard told platforms to 'adjust their algorithms so it's not celebrated', and asserted platforms know how their algorithms work and that monetisation rewards outrageous content. The reporting supplies no statutory hook for that ask - the Online Safety Act passage cited leaves illegality determinations to the platform and describes exceptions that are hard to interpret - so the engineering request sits outside the compliance surface being invoked. TikTok's answer is a proactive-removal ratio (99.8% between January and March 2026), a detection-and-delete metric that says nothing about distribution, amplification or time-to-detection; the one clip BBC Verify analysed was posted in March 2025 and removed only after the crash.

Reality

Evidence, adoption, hype gap, incentives and confidence, each read independently from the current record on the scale shown beneath it. How these are measured.

Evidence58: 0100
One outlet, but named officials, on-record platform statement and first-party clip analysis
All material comes from a single publisher, which caps corroboration. Within it, the evidence is unusually concrete: named victims and officers, direct quotes from a minister, Downing Street, Ofcom and the Cleveland PCC, an on-record TikTok statement, and BBC Verify's own frame analysis of a 94-second clip locating it in Ormesby. What remains unverified is the load-bearing quantitative claim: TikTok's 99.8% proactive figure is self-reported with no denominator or audit, and no legal citation is given for a duty covering recommendation changes.
Adoption32: 0100
Deletions and an open probe; no evidence of ranking change
Concrete uptake is limited to enforcement on one account, a self-reported quarterly removal ratio, and Ofcom's July investigation into TikTok's child safety duties. The specific action ministers asked for - demoting or de-celebrating this content in recommendation systems - has no reported instance from any platform, and Meta and X did not respond. Removal after a fatal crash of a clip that had been live since March 2025 is weak evidence that existing detection reaches this category at speed.
Hype gap+34: −100 understated0 aligned+100 overstated
Demand and metric both overstate what is enforceable or measured
Positive gap on two counts. Ministers and Downing Street frame the ask in the language of legal obligation and Ofcom enforcement, yet the statutory description supplied leaves the illegal/legal determination to platforms, carries exceptions the report calls hard to interpret, and contains no stated duty to alter ranking - so the 'adjust their algorithms' demand outruns its cited legal basis. TikTok's reply, in turn, answers a distribution question with a detection statistic. The gap is moderate rather than extreme because the underlying harm is documented with seven deaths, verified clips and a comparable Kildare crash.
Incentives72: 0100
Political, platform and creator incentives all explicit in the record
The incentive structure is unusually visible. Pollard himself names creator monetisation as a driver of outrageous posting. The government has an evident interest in demonstrating action days after two officers died, which is served by directing demands at platforms and by invoking Ofcom's backing. TikTok has an interest in publishing its most favourable moderation statistic - a near-perfect proactive rate - rather than time-to-detection or reach figures. Meta and X, silent here, face no comparable disclosure pressure in this report.
Confidence55: 0100
Facts of the incident firm; enforcement reading rests on one outlet
High confidence in the incident record, the quotes and the existence of the deleted videos, all of which are on-record or first-party verified. Lower confidence in the analytical core - that no statutory line exists for the algorithm change requested - because it rests on a single outlet's legal characterisation with no provision cited and no regulator confirmation on that specific point. Confidence in the platform-effectiveness picture is likewise limited by unaudited, self-reported figures and two absent platforms.

Topics and entities

Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.

Topics

Recommendation algorithms and amplificationFollow
Creator monetisation incentivesFollow
Online Safety Act enforcementFollow
Content moderation and takedownsFollow

Entities

Luke PollardFollow
TikTok Follow
Ofcom Follow
Online Safety Act Follow
BBC VerifyFollow
Meta Follow
Cleveland Police and Crime CommissionerFollow
X Follow