Key to the new, safer internet the government is trying to establish is the identification and removal of illegal or so-called ‘legal but harmful’ content. Currently, the onus is on the platforms themselves to decide what meets these description, but the bill will put these definitions in the hands of Parliament.

The government says this change “removes any incentives or pressure for platforms to over-remove legal content or controversial comments”, putting MPs in charge of determining which statements fall under legal free speech and which need to be taken down.

All this means that what we see online may look different if the Online Safety Bill in its current form is been passed into law, with comments being removed and sites being hidden until users can verify their age.

Anyone who follows online influencers – people who make a career out of posting about products on social media – might notice an increase in the amount of paid-for promotions, not because there are more but because influencers that fail to declare they are being paid to promote products on social media could be subject to stronger penalties.

There should also be fewer scams to be found, as social media platforms and search engines will be legally required to prevent paid-for fraudulent adverts appearing on their services.

Who decides what is ‘legal but harmful’ online?

The new bill is said to help “clear up the grey area around what constitutes legal but harmful”, however Higson-Bliss says she has concerns around giving Ofcom the power to govern what we say online.

An example of activity that could be deemed legal but harmful is content around the subject of self-harm.

“[The government] is saying that that sort of content would be legal but harmful and should be removed. But the issue there is, where do you draw the line? Mental health is an important topic and we shouldn’t be pushing conversations like this underground. You should be allowed to have frank and open conversations about mental health. So, if we’re now censoring that [by deeming it legal but harmful and removing it], are we actually going backwards rather than forwards with regards to mental health?”

Higson-Bliss says that currently, the legal but harmful definition is so broad, even material around things like gambling, or alcohol, could be argued to have a harmful element.

“We see gambling adverts on football all the time. Does it now mean we’re not allowed to put those adverts on social media, or even discuss them?“

How will the bill stop cyber-flashing?

In addition to changing what users can post on social media, and what content we will be allowed to see, there will also be specific criminal offences put into law to protect us from things like cyber-flashing – sending explicit images to another person without their consent.

Cyber-flashing can happen across social media sites or in private messaging, but has often been associated with people using Apple’s AirDrop feature to send images to strangers’ iPhones in the nearby area, says Higson-Bliss.

Read more about online activity:

• Why social media makes us so angry, and what you can do about it
• Is porn bad for you?

The Online Safety Bill will introduce a new criminal offence that covers when a person intentionally sends or gives a photograph or film of a person’s genitalia to another person with the intent that the media will cause alarm, distress and/or humiliation.

“That [definition] is something that’s been quite heavily criticised at the moment, because if you’re sending that image for, let’s say, a joke, your intent is not necessarily going to fall under the definition of alarm, distress or humiliation.”

The bill will also make it a criminal offence to send or give such a photograph or film for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, if the person sending it knows or thinks the recipient will be caused alarm, distress or humiliation.

Does the new Online Safety Bill protect children?

Sites will now be assessed to determine whether it’s possible for children to access the content. Where children can access the site, there is a duty to “mitigate the impact of harm to children in different age groups presented by content that is harmful to children”, reads the bill.

The only way to show that a site is not able to be accessed by children is by putting something in place like age verification or another means of age assurance. This could involve asking users to upload their driving licence for proof of ID, or a credit card number.

Age verification for pornographic sites has been being discussed for a number of years, says Higson-Bliss, but the bill could argue that any site will need to put in measures to ensure children can’t access potentially harmful material.

What isn’t covered by the new legislation?

While the government has said the new bill protects freedom of speech, Higson-Bliss says the current draft could be putting freedom of expression “more under threat than before”.

“I think the only thing that’s missing is a balance between freedom of expression and privacy. The new provision of harmful communications that’s been put forward within the bill will make it an offence to send a communication which is harmful to another to a likely audience without reasonable excuse.”

Where the line is drawn, though, is unclear. What will be deemed a reasonable excuse?

Higson-Bliss does think that the current problems with the draft bill will be resolved before it is put into law.