In the coming days, a joint committee of MPs will provide a report suggesting what should be included in the Online Safety Bill.

The groundbreaking legislation is one of the first to seek to codify a set of guidelines for how online platforms should handle material.

Its mandate is broad - perhaps too broad for some. Others, though, believe it does not go far enough.

What exactly is the purpose of the bill?

The measure aims to accomplish three objectives:

reduce the transmission of illicit information and behavior, such as pornographic material, extremist materials, and racial violence, such as racist attacks

keep youngsters away from potentially dangerous materials

Adults should be protected against stuff that is lawful but harmful.

There are other issues to consider, including whether or not pornographic websites should apply age verification. What should be done about abuse coming from an anonymous account? What are the best ways to ensure that free expression is protected?

The legislation essentially places the onus on the tech behemoths to figure out how and authorizes a regulator - Ofcom - to oversee whether they do so adequately. 

What is the status of the law right now?

Nadine Dorries, the new Culture Secretary, is determined to take on the tech behemoths.

The government has been experimenting with dealing with online information for years, initially under the moniker 'Online Harms.'

The renamed Online Safety Bill is still a draught that has been scrutinized by the joint parliamentary committee for several months and is set to release its recommendations any day soon.

The document will then be handed back to the Department of Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) for a final decision on what should be included, with the goal of presenting it to Parliament in March 2022.

The DCMS has undergone significant revisions since its original form, including the appointment of a new secretary of state, Nadine Dorries.

She appears to want to tough up the bill significantly, possibly reintroducing the threat of prison for technology leaders who fail to remove 'destructive algorithms,' as she put it.

She also doesn't appear keen on giving them the present two-year grace period to get their houses in right, telling the joint committee that six months would be a preferable time frame.

Trolls are increasingly targeting politicians, and Ms Dorries has personal experience with this, so it may be a top focus for her.

Who will be in charge of it?

Dame Melanie Dawes is up to the task, she told Web Summit attendees recently, and Ofcom is about to gain a lot more power. It will be in charge of determining whether the tech behemoths are doing enough to prevent the spread of illegal content such as child abuse photographs, terrorist materials, and racial abuse.

However, it will need to ensure that they are doing enough to prevent 'legal but damaging' information - a difficult definition that no one has quite nailed down.

Dame Melanie Dawes, the chief executive of Ofcom, told the joint committee that the regulator was ready for its new role, but cautioned that when the legislation is adopted, her team may be overwhelmed with complaints.

She also admitted that Facebook, Google, and Twitter will hire legal teams to fight the lawsuit.

Despite these reservations, Ofcom is taking on the challenges ahead with a brave face. It is preparing for the challenge by 'acquiring new technology and data expertise,' according to the BBC.

It said tech companies would have to be 'far more forthcoming with us, and their users,' about how they intended to protect them from harmful content and remove illegal posts fast.

What do the tech behemoths have to say?

Since the legislation was published, the major social media companies have experienced significant changes: Facebook has decided to pursue the 'metaverse' and changed its name, while Twitter has parted ways with founder Jack Dorsey. However, their stance on the bill has remained consistent so far.

They're cautiously welcome, but they're quick to point out all of the safeguards they've put in place to protect users, as well as how much money they've spent on platform security. 

Facebook wants governments to create new standards, according to Monica Bickert, vice president of content policy at Meta, since 'companies like ours shouldn't be making these judgments on our own.'

She acknowledged that the UK is leading the way in an opinion article for the Telegraph, saying, 'While we won't agree with all the details, we're glad the Online Safety Bill is moving forward.'

What modifications are possible?

Both Moneyexpert.com's Martin Lewis and consumer group Which? have lobbied for the bill to include online scam advertisements, which they claim cause victims significant financial and emotional harm and should be something that tech companies can address.

It appears unlikely that this will be included in the law; Nadine Dorries recently stated that it required its own measure. 

The NSPCC, which has been an outspoken opponent of the bill in its current form, has signed an open letter to Nadine Dorries urging her to place children 'at the core' of the legislation.

It has outlined a five-point strategy for improving the law:

interrupt grooming routes, address how criminals utilize social media to organize abuse, and appoint a designated child safety manager

Give private message abusers more power to fight back.

establish a legal entity to represent children's interests

What are the other points of contention?

Some argue that the bill is harmful to free expression.

The Index on Censorship and the Open Rights Groups have warned that defining speech as 'destructive' is a risky proposition in and of itself and that entrusting the decision to remove it to Silicon Valley businesses is equally risky.

'Tech corporations have now formally recognized get to be the analog of proprietors of a prospective criminal investigation who are also in charge of investigating the crime on their venue while also acting as both judges and executioners,' lawyer Yair Cohen of Cohen Davis Solicitors told the press.

He claimed that delegating this to computer firms was 'very lazy' on Parliament's part.

He also said that allowing victims to 'unmask their attackers' was the simplest method for legislation to convert internet abuse into an unacceptable type of anti-social behavior.

90% of internet abusers, the majority of whom are otherwise normal people, would be deterred if they knew their identities could be easily traced, he claimed.