Online Safety Act Does Not Tackle the Worst (and Biggest) Culprits
Earlier this month: Online Safety Act Tries to Accomplish the Impossible
The EU has Chat Control. The UK, which is no longer in the EU, has similar provisions in different laws, which partly overlap.
So much has been written about this. We don't believe we have much to add except that if people migrate to Free software - as many already do - then enforcement will be difficult enough to inevitably become both costly and ineffective. That's not even counting VPNs as a critical factor.
The solution to online harms and crime-solving cannot wrongly assume that those who do harms and commit crimes are interested in obeying British laws. Heck, many of them aren't even based in Britain. Over-ambitious plans such as these will cost a lot and accomplish (almost) nothing. We envision that some companies which stand to profit from (pocket) those costs will lobby for that.
Going back to the 1990s, which is when the Web started and people at home could more easily connect to the Net, there was no absence of cyber-criminals and online harms. The approach was different. Everything was different. The laws were also different.
In my view, if our governments are serious about tackling online harms, then they need to look closely at GAFAM and social control media giants. They cause a great deal of harm online, but they have lobbyists and they typically have politicians in their back pockets, so pursuit of a solution to online harms is selective at best. █