Why would it make no sense? Like many bills/acts, it came into effect in stages. You're referring to new laws/crimes that came into effect in January 2024.
I'm referring to the Act's powers to compel companies to actually do things in my original comment. I don't know exactly when various parts came into effect that would constitute that, but for the point of my post I'm going on Peter Kyle's own website's dated reference to holding companies accountable.
"As of the 24th July 2025, platforms now have a legal duty to protect children"
https://www.peterkyle.co.uk/blog/2025/07/25/online-safety-ac...
I don't understand why people are taking issue with that. Peter Kyle is the minister who delivered the measures from the bill that a lot of people are angry about and this latest issue on X is just another red flag that the bill is poorly worded and thought out putting too much emphasis on ID age checks for citizens than actually stopping any abuse. Peter Kyle is the one who called out objections to the bill as being on the "side of predators". Peter Kyle is now the one, despite having moved department, who is somehow commenting on this issue.
Totally happy to call out the Tories, and prior ministers who worked on the Bill/Act but Kyle implemented it, made reckless comments about, and now is trying to look proactive about an issue it covers that it's so ineffectively applying to.
Partisan politics has rotted peoples brains, I wonder if it is by design to lower peoples critical thinking skills or if it is just a fringe benefit from the tribalism it creates.
> this latest issue on X is just another red flag that the bill is poorly worded and thought out putting too much emphasis on ID age checks for citizens than actually stopping any abuse.
The bill is designed to protect children from extreme sexual violence, extreme pornography and CSAM.
Not to protect adults from bikinification.
It is working as designed.