That’s because the new law is at the vanguard of a global push to, well, make online life safer, especially for children. Some of this stuff is in current U.S. bills (like age-gating) and some is in the EU’s under-consideration “Chat Control” proposal (scanning messages)—no matter the place, the same issues apply. So, here’s a quick breakdown, starting with the more obviously positive aspects of the incoming Online Safety Act.

Self-protection. Social media platforms will have to give adult users tools to filter out harmful-but-not-illegal content such as racist posts or those that encourage self-harm.

New sexual offenses. Sending a nude picture to someone to distress them and gain gratification? Cyber-flashing will be illegal now—and something that makes someone a registered sex offender. Also, sharing an intimate image (real or a deepfake) of someone without their consent is now going to be illegal.

…Aaaand that’s about it as far as the clearly good goes. Let’s head into murkier territory now.

Porn publishers must keep kids out. Good—nay, essential—in theory, but the age-verification and age-estimation tools from which they must choose all introduce new problems around privacy and bias. Over to the communications regulator Ofcom now, to figure out how to make this part workable.

Social media platforms and harmful content. Again, kids are supposed to be shielded from seeing harmful content, such as posts that romanticize suicide or depict serious violence. Age verification or estimation again—see above.

Still murkier…

Platforms and harmful content. Online platforms must remove illegal content quickly or even stop it from being uploaded in the first place. Civil rights advocates hate this because they see the definitions of illegal content as too blurry—thus forcing the platform operators to make constant calls about what is and isn’t allowed—and because it’s hard to appeal against a preemptive upload block. They warn that the likes of Facebook and X may even have to block the upload of protest videos, under the U.K.’s draconian public order laws.

And now, the pièce de résistance.

Undermining end-to-end encryption. What has become known as the bill’s “spy clause” will allow the government, via Ofcom, to tell an encrypted messaging platform, such as Signal or WhatsApp, to make it possible to scan their messages for terrorist or child abuse material.

Yes, the government did recently perform a slight climbdown by saying it wouldn’t try to enforce this until it becomes “technically feasible” to bypass end-to-end encryption without compromising users’ privacy, but the clause will be part of the Act, making it something of a sword of Damocles.

Already, hardline interior minister Suella Braverman has used the looming law to warn Facebook parent Meta against expanding the use of end-to-end encryption on Messenger and Instagram. “My call to Meta is to work with us more constructively to roll out end-to-end encryption with robust safety measures because what they’re proposing at the moment will make Facebook and Instagram Direct safe havens for pedophiles,” she reportedly told the BBC today before continuing on Times Radio: “We want to encourage them to adopt the technological solution. We believe the solution exists, whereby user privacy can be protected and child safety can be safeguarded.”

So no, the U.K.’s threat to the integrity of end-to-end encryption is anything but neutralized—and now the government is even gaining the power to jail executives of companies that won’t comply. Signal president Meredith Whittaker has reiterated her service’s threat to walk if necessary, posting on Bluesky today that “we will do whatever we can to continue ensuring people in the U.K. can use Signal, but if the choice came down to being forced to build a backdoor, or leaving, we would leave.”

More news below.

Want to send thoughts or suggestions to Data Sheet? Drop a line here.

David Meyer

NEWSWORTHY

Arm comes back to earth. The chip-design behemoth Arm has seen its share price decline in three consecutive sessions, after its buoyant IPO last week. As Reuters reports, that 25% lift on day one ($51 to $63.59, followed by a $69 high on Friday) has been largely reversed, with the stock closing yesterday at $55.17.

Uber vs EU gig-work directive. Uber’s European mobility chief has lashed out at a proposed EU law that would give gig workers, like its drivers, full working rights. “If Brussels forces Uber to reclassify drivers and couriers across the EU, we could expect to see a 50-70% reduction in the number of work opportunities,” Anabel Díaz told the Financial Times. “It could drive up prices by as much as 40% for consumers in major cities.”

Musk perks in the spotlight. The U.S. Department of Justice is, according to the Wall Street Journal, closely examining the perks that Elon Musk has enjoyed at Tesla since 2017—so, not just that glass house. If there is indeed a criminal case to be answered (the Securities and Exchange Commission has a separate civil probe into the glass house) then it would have to do with Tesla’s failure to notify any perks to investors. Separately, Musk’s Neuralink says it has received permission to start recruiting for a brain implant trial in paralysis patients.

ON OUR FEED

“I know this is disappointing, even if many of the documents are well over a year old and our plans have evolved...When we’re ready, we’ll share the real plans with our players.”

—Microsoft gaming chief Phil Spencer tells staffers the company will “learn” from its accidental leaking of its Xbox roadmap, Bethesda release schedule, and more.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

Elon Musk wants to get everyone paying to use Twitter to counter ‘bots’—but his WeChat ambitions suggest another motive, by Christiaan Hetzner

AI’s existential threat is a ‘completely bonkers distraction’ because there are ‘like 101 more practical issues’ to talk about, top founder in the field says, by Paolo Confino

The not-so-subtle self-interest behind tech warnings not to ‘stifle innovation’, by Sage Lazzaro

Parents whose kids bought gear on Fortnite without asking can get a refund after a $520 million settlement with the video game’s maker, by the Associated Press

Polish spirits company appoints AI as CEO. Robot vows no ‘personal bias,’ only ‘unbiased and strategic choices’, by Chris Morris

BEFORE YOU GO

TikTok’s American friend. The Journal has a big piece on multibillionaire Jeff Yass, a financier who has a 7% stake in TikTok parent ByteDance—and who has been quietly fighting against bipartisan legislative attempts to outlaw TikTok.

Yass is a major donor to the conservative Club for Growth, which has given financial support to Kentucky Republicans Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie—and at least five others—who went on to push back against anti-TikTok bills. Yass: “I’ve supported libertarian and free market principles my entire adult life. TikTok is about free speech and innovation, the epitome of libertarian and free market ideals. The idea of banning TikTok is an anathema to everything I believe.”