I mean, if small forums are having to shut down, it isn't a big tech issue. It's an overreach of regulation issue.

It's not about censorship. If I can still access everything then it's not being censored, it's about being able to use the internet without having to hand over personal information. If I walk into a shop to buy a porn mag the shopkeeper doesn't take a photo of me and my ID and promise to get rid of it later.

Also in the guardian today is an article on how the combo of proscribing Palestine Action and introducing the online safety act is causing platforms to censor information about Gaza. His counter-argument in this article is that Meta were censoring information on Palestine already, but Meta had always been overzealous in their content moderation, now it's every platform.

He says in this that he's worried being too specific would be more authoritarian but I would say the opposite is true - if what needs censoring is too vague, platforms are gonna be extreme in what they block and put behind age verification because the fines are so high. And vague guidance can be used to justify blocking anything. It only entrenches big tech further because small sites can't afford the age verification or the risk of a £10 million fines.

This article was clearly written by someone who has no idea how technology works, but knows how to spin up buzzwords.

This is also the man who wrote the law.