happyborg<p>Great read</p><p>"The Online Safety Act reads to me as a profoundly ironic tragedy. <a href="https://fosstodon.org/tags/Ofcom" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Ofcom</span></a> constantly reiterates that huge, vague swaths of expression are “illegal, harmful content” while, to me, almost everything they’ve written about the <a href="https://fosstodon.org/tags/OSA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>OSA</span></a> is illegal, harmful content. The OSA exercises prior restraint and enables jawboning for a deliberate chilling effect, placing an undue burden that would never withstand strict scrutiny let alone justify unreasonable search and seizure"<br><a href="https://lobste.rs/s/ukosa1/uk_users_lobsters_needs_your_help_with#c_xevn8a" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">lobste.rs/s/ukosa1/uk_users_lo</span><span class="invisible">bsters_needs_your_help_with#c_xevn8a</span></a></p>