As posted previously, the original creators of the internet were well aware of its potential for harm (propaganda, spreading of mis-information, hate etc) but decided that, on balance, it's benefits (the free and easier sharing of knowledge and information eg) outweighed such concerns. As with the "real world" outside the realm outside of cyberspace, they had to wrestle with the balancing of policing the system v the principle of freedom of speech/thought.

Unlike authoritarian regimes (Russia, Iran, China) the UK has evolved a series of laws to help protect our freedoms such us our Equality legislation. I might personally question the one around religion (as this is not an inherent characteristic) but does anyone on here not believe that people should be protected under law for their age, ***, colour of skin or disability which are all things they cannot change about themselves?

No-one wants to see Big Brother policing of the internet or Social Media but that surely doesn't mean that people can post what they like? I'm confused. Does this mean that those so concerned about rumoured government intervention in Social Media (mainly because the tech companies cannot keep their own houses in order) do not believe that influencers like Andrew Tate are dangerous? That social media is not used by right wing racists to spread hatred or incite violence, or by foreign states (e.g. Russia) to help ferment unrest, or by criminal gangs to lure people into scams, or by minority extremists of all stripes to push their agendas whether woke or right wing, or by Islamic extremists seeking to recruit, or by grooming gangs? Or simply by keyboard warriors of any stripe who push hatred or incite violence or even unthinking individuals who partake in body shaming or the cyber bullying of others. Are we saying that all of this is OK then? That just because things are on the internet that they cannot be classed as criminal acts?

Until far more people are capable of a bit more critical thinking and accepting of open debate rather than simple gain saying then we will continue down this slippery slope and our over tolerance will be our downfall. We accept the need for policing in the "real world" so why not the cyber world? The moot point is that such policing should be there to protect our freedoms not erode them.