Thread by @rcolvile

I am normally a slavish devotee of @Dannythefink, but I think this on the Online Safety Act misses the mark profoundly (1/?) thetimes.com/comment/column…

Danny's thesis is that the OSA has just come in, and we should approach it with an open mind until we know how it's actually working. But that ignores everything about how the OSA was put together, and in particular the staggering ignorance shown by lawmakers during that process.

Everyone who knew even the slightest bit about tech had profound concerns about this law, ranging from the core idea of 'legal but harmful' speech, to the chilling effect on tech investment, to the way a law meant to target Google/Meta would actually entrench their dominance.

We at @CPSThinkTank wrote multiple reports on what a looming disaster it was, and lobbied furiously (and succesfully) to ameliorate 'legal but harmful'. But also @asi, @89up, @StartupCltn and many others. We all ran into invincible status of 'won't someone think of the children'.

@CPSThinkTank @ASI @89up @StartupCltn So the reaction to the Bill, in many quarters, is not a case of people suddenly being put out to have to verify their age before they can look at porn. It is that, to echo R Conquest, we told you so, you ****ing fools.

@CPSThinkTank @ASI @89up @StartupCltn So yes, in the wider sense, Danny is completely right that we shouldn't react hysterically to every little thing. But this is a law that everyone knew would be bad, turning out to be bad.

@CPSThinkTank @ASI @89up @StartupCltn Oh, and always worth remembering as per @meIisactu that there is a huge amount of really bad stuff still to come down the track