> People in the UK will be better protected from illegal harms online
What are these 'illegal harms'? I'm online 10+ hours a day for 10 years straight and never seen one. (not assuming they don't exist, but their prevalence/impact might be inflated).
If you have to go looking for them, isn't this just 'whack a mole' (since 'online harms' will hard to 100% eradicate), but at the expense of destroying parts of the internet run by people who can't afford the time/cost of lawyers in order to comply with and refute claims of breach of this legislation?
Also 'online harms' pertaining to 'eating disorders'. What content promotes eating disorders?! Is there a single site that authors/proponents of this regulation can point to that literally 'promotes eating disorders'? How would a site admin determine what is acceptable and what is not? See: chilling effect [1]
What are these 'illegal harms'? I'm online 10+ hours a day for 10 years straight and never seen one. (not assuming they don't exist, but their prevalence/impact might be inflated).
If you have to go looking for them, isn't this just 'whack a mole' (since 'online harms' will hard to 100% eradicate), but at the expense of destroying parts of the internet run by people who can't afford the time/cost of lawyers in order to comply with and refute claims of breach of this legislation?
Also 'online harms' pertaining to 'eating disorders'. What content promotes eating disorders?! Is there a single site that authors/proponents of this regulation can point to that literally 'promotes eating disorders'? How would a site admin determine what is acceptable and what is not? See: chilling effect [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect