> The government will no longer let social media giants decide what constitutes “legal but harmful” content, as it revises the Online Safety Bill.

I don't trust any government to decide (as they would lean towards quashing dissent or criticism), nor do I trust tech companies to decide (as they would lean towards arbitrary manifestations of their own cultures, usually based in specific parts of the US, and usually ignorant of cultures outside the US). The sensibilities of what constitute 'free speech' is not universal.

What's worked somewhat well in the UK is our regulatory bodies, such as Ofcom and Ofgem. I won't say they're perfect but they tend to strike a balance between companies' interests and protecting the public. If you're looking to define and regular 'legal but harmful' then it's better to shift that responsibility of defining and enforcing to such a body.

I am with you. However note that Ofcom will be the regulator in this case. The issue that concerns people is that many powers are reserved for the Secretary of State. Also what consititutes 'legal but harmful' is to be defined in secondary legislation.

> balance between companies' interests and protecting the public

I'm not paying tax money so they strike a balance between tax payers' interests and companies interests. I'd rather vote for a government fully in line with mines.

Oh please just stop with the UK...you're a bunch of jokes everywhere.

Yes. This sets a terrible precedent and we can expect cloning overseas.

They already did one-way..Australia and New-Zealand.

We know.

I’m so sorry.

This legislation is so very cringeworthy it’s unreal

It's your country, sorry for you.

Thanks.

Know anywhere that’s fairly liberal and warm? Hahah

No, just your problem. But big hug's and kisses ;) haha

Hahaha

> it will decide what is “legal but harmful”

Isn’t the definition of their job pretty much to decide what’s legal and then stop there?

Right, because a peon like me certainly isn’t capable of that, I need somebody smarter to figure it out.