Similarly, to move from 'our rules are prone to over-enforcement' (even if true) to 'so we should scrap rules' is a stretch.

The leaps made in this announcement are glaring. If speech constitutes legitimate debate, then any consequence - including 'intrusive labels' - is apparently the same thing as censorship

It is good to see, given what's been happening across the pond, that Ofcom is reaffirming the right of platforms TO carry out content moderation - and an interesting reference to it as their own freedom of expression, which mirrors findings in court cases in the US perkinscoie.com/insights/upd...

And what about rights? This part on qualified rights indicates that harm prevention may take precedence over rights, despite the then-Government's assurances of rights protections. A missed oppty to put rights at the heart of the Act www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/r...

And the challenges of identifying illegal content remain. This diagram shows how platforms would need to identify which content is illegal for the purposes of compliance with the Act. For many of the priority offences - this can't be done at scale.

But - and this is due to the Act, not Ofcom - it feels so disappointing to see how specifically and tightly - because required by the act - these risk assessments are tied *only* to threats and risks of illegal content

This says that my podcast is ready and that the podcast ‘was made’ - indicating that it exists already