ReviewPatterns (New York, N.Y.)2022
A critical review of the Online Safety Bill.
Review in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Understanding Safety in Online Mental Health Forums: Realist Evaluation.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The UK Parliament has tabled the Online Safety Bill to make the internet safer for users by requiring providers to regulate legal but harmful content on their platform. This paper critically assesses the draft legislation, surveying its rationale; its scope in terms of lawful and unlawful harms it intends to regulate; and the mechanisms through which it will be enforced. We argue that it requires further refinement if it is to protect free speech and innovation in the digital sphere. We propose four conclusions: further evidence is required to substantiate the necessity and proportionality of the Bill's interventions; the Bill risks a democratic deficit by limiting the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny; the duties of the bill may be too wide (in terms of burdening providers); and that enforcement of a Code of Practice will likely be insufficient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.