'Legal but harmful' may have been formally removed from #OnlineSafetyBill, but it has been outsourced to Ofcom enforcement of Big-Tech companies' terms & conditions. If they fail to enforce it - even removing legal content - they will be breaking the law.
🐦🔗: https://n.respublicae.eu/Fox_Claire/status/1656023016613060615
Later on, in response to the minister's non-reply, I pushed again. To no avail...
🐦🔗: https://n.respublicae.eu/Fox_Claire/status/1656025078713204765
...This would mean that there will be a default setting that adults will have to turn on to access lawful speech. FGS, Big Brother paternalism is alive and well in The Lords. #OnlineSafetyBill
🐦🔗: https://n.respublicae.eu/Fox_Claire/status/1656026102798733316
Another quick question on the war of the toggles! If asked to choose between censorship in order to feel safe, and free speech with the prospect of some discomfort/hateful material, I know which side I'm on. #OnlineSafetyBill
🐦🔗: https://n.respublicae.eu/Fox_Claire/status/1656028393240920075
Yesterday I spoke in defence of online anonymity. So many reasons why people might be anonymous - experimenting with sexuality before coming out, using social media for campaigning. The freedom to be anonymous is an important privacy right.
https://youtu.be/-8uJtPBtJpk
🐦🔗: https://n.respublicae.eu/Fox_Claire/status/1656389986206244866
Finally, my longest speech yet. Trying to insist that #freespeech is not a secondary value, always trumped by safety. What is psychological harm? And how on earth can we defend democratic debate online if the virtual world is crawling with regulators?!
https://youtu.be/SdTs6I86K3M
🐦🔗: https://n.respublicae.eu/Fox_Claire/status/1656390434594205698
After that I asked a short, related question - yes I have every sympathy with those worried about adults who are vulnerable, but organising a law around adult access to material as though ALL adults are vulnerable is very dangerous for #freespeech. #OnlineSafetyBill
🐦🔗: https://n.respublicae.eu/Fox_Claire/status/1656026625773805569