ground breaking but complex a law that won t satisfy everyone, but may finally bring to an end the era of big tech regulating itself. angus crawford, bbc news. let s get some analysis on this from our chief political correspondent nick eardley. we have talked about this bill for so long, haven t we? now it looks like it will finally come to pass. how significant is this moment, these amendments? tt is how significant is this moment, these amendments? it is important because this these amendments? it is important because this is these amendments? it is important because this is a these amendments? it is important because this is a huge these amendments? it is important because this is a huge piece - these amendments? it is important because this is a huge piece of - because this is a huge piece of legislation. as you say, we have been talking about it for years. the government has come up against some real resistance to parts of it, and the hope that ministers have is that the
so what s in, and what s out? powers for ministers to define legal but harmful content dropped satisfying free speech advocates in her party, infuriating labour. but now included new criminal offences of encouraging self harm, and sharing deep fake pornography. better age verification for children. adult users given more power to block unwanted content. ground breaking but complex a law that won t satisfy everyone, but may finally bring to an end the era of big tech regulating itself. angus crawford, bbc news. let s get some analysis on this now from our chief political correspondent nick eardley. good morning. how significant is this bill and the changes? goad this bill and the changes? good morninu. this bill and the changes? good morning. this this bill and the changes? good morning. this is this bill and the changes? good morning. this is a this bill and the changes? good morning. this is a huge - this bill and the changes? good
a law that won t satisfy everyone, but may finally bring to an end the era of big tech regulating itself. angus crawford, bbc news. the culture secretary, michelle donelan, has been defending the bill and denies watering down the legislation. no legal but harmful aspect was pertaining to adults. content that is harmful or could hurt children but is not illegal, so is legal, will still be removed under this version the bill. so, the content that molly russell saw will no longer be allowed under the spell. i want to be really clear on that because that is fundamentally what this bill is about. let s talk to our technology editor, zoe kleinman. the government talking about different protections for children.
i don t see how you can see the removal of a whole clause as anything other than a watering down. the evidence that was presented to molly s inquest by the platforms that showed what molly had engaged with when she was online, that contributed to her death, as the coroner concluded at the end of the inquest, the content that she saw and engaged with, i think the most harmful content to her was content that could be described as legal but harmful. ground breaking but complex a law that won t satisfy everyone, but may finally bring to an end the era of big tech regulating itself. angus crawford, bbc news. our political correspondent, helen catt, is at westminster. helen, taking this provision out of the bill, it is part of an attempt to smooth the whole passage through parliament? ~ ., ., parliament? what the government seems to have parliament? what the government seems to have suggest parliament? what the government seems to have suggest it - parliament? what the government seems
new criminal offences of encouraging self harm, and sharing deep fake pornography. better age verification for children. adult users given more power to block unwanted content. ground breaking but complex a law that won t satisfy everyone, but may finally bring to an end the era of big tech regulating itself. angus crawford, bbc news. our chief political correspondent nick eardley is in westminster. good morning to you. first of all, how exactly did the critics of these measures believe, if they had been included, they would have damaged free speech? the included, they would have damaged free speech? free speech? the fear was that it ave the free speech? the fear was that it gave the government free speech? the fear was that it gave the government too - free speech? the fear was that it gave the government too much l free speech? the fear was that it - gave the government too much power to decide what was harmful, and then internet companies too much power to remove it, and that i