> But I don't think it's reasonable to defend them as if these actions aren't egregious
I'm not defending the Online Safety Act, I think it's a horrible and stupid law. On the other hand, I will defend GDPR, which uses a similar legal framework of enforcement. My argument is that the UK is within its rights to implement and enforce laws as they see fit, not that the laws are good.
> My argument is that the UK is within its rights to implement and enforce laws as they see fit, not that the laws are good.
The argument you are making, is that the laws, and the behavior they're enabling is reasonable.
That may not what you meant to convey, but to abuse an analogy, it is fruit from the poisoned tree. You can't defend some action, without by proxy defending the source. Either the law is reasonable, and ofcom is acting reasonably, or the law is unreasonable, and ofcom is acting unreasonably trying to enforce it. Correct or not, or technically legal in the UK or not.
You can defend the actions of ofcom, as not illegal, but that's not what you're doing, and not the context of this thread.
I'm not defending the Online Safety Act, I think it's a horrible and stupid law. On the other hand, I will defend GDPR, which uses a similar legal framework of enforcement. My argument is that the UK is within its rights to implement and enforce laws as they see fit, not that the laws are good.