Controversial measures that would have forced technology platforms to remove legal but harmful material have been removed from the online safety bill.
The section in the bill was claimed to pose a risk to free speech.
The culture secretary denied that laws protecting social media users were weakened.
The bill is expected to become law in the UK before the summer.
There is a section that requires the largest, highest-risk platforms to tackle some legal but harmful material.
It meant that the likes of Facebook,Instagram andYouTube would have to prevent people from being exposed to certain types of content.
This allowed technology companies to censor legal speech.
Kemi said it was legislating for hurt feelings.
In July, nine senior Conservatives, including former ministers Lord Frost, David Davis and Steve Baker, wrote a letter to Nadine Dorries, saying the provision could be used to restrict free speech by a Labour government.
Adults will be able to access and post anything legal if the platform's terms of service allow it.
The legal but harmful duties have been taken out of the bill, but Mr Davis still has concerns about privacy and freedom of expression.
The bill allows the government to tell companies to look at private messages.
He urged the government to accept the amendments in his name to fix the technology notices so that they don't pose a threat to encryption.
Lucy Powell is the Shadow Culture Secretary.
It gave a free pass to abusers and took the public for a ride, she said.
The revised bill offers a triple shield of protection, so it's certainly not weaker in any way, Ms Donelan said.
It requires platforms to be used.
Content promoting eating disorders or inciting hate on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender re-assignment will be included, although there will be exemptions to allow legitimate debate.
The first two parts of the triple shield were part of the draft bill.
The goal of the bill is to make sure that things that are criminal in real life are treated the same online.
reining in the power of the tech companies is one way to bring an end to self regulation.
It has been difficult to get the bill this far. The need to define what constitutes "legal but harmful" content may have been satisfied by the dropping of the requirement.
New criminal charges for encouraging self harm or sharing fake porn could be a victory for the campaign.
The Samaritans don't think it adequately protects adults from harmful material.
According to the Molly Rose Foundation, the bill has been watered down. It said in a statement that it's about the freedom to live.
There is a lot about the bill that isn't clear.
The Centre for Countering Digital Hate said platforms might feel off the hook because of the focus on user controls.
Tough rules were needed after Musk's takeover of the social networking site. A number of banned accounts, including that of Ye, were recently restored.
The government strengthened the law against self- harm and distribution of intimate images without consent, according to the chief executive.
The update to the online safety bill will prohibit the encouragement of self- harm.
Technology companies will be required to publish the risk of harm to children on their websites.
Companies need to explain how they will enforce age limits so that children don't see certain types of content.
Users' accounts can't be removed if they have broken the law or the site's rules.
Monica Horten is a tech policy expert at the Open Rights Group.
She said that companies are likely to use artificial intelligence to analyse data.
This is a recipe for a gated internet that is run by third-party private operators.
The communications and media regulatory body Ofcom will be able to fine companies up to 10% of their worldwide revenue.
The victims' commissioner, the domestic- abuse commissioner and the children's commissioner must be consulted when drawing up the codes.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
