We are on a voyage of discovery about what the possible impact is. That is why I fully support the creation of the AI Safety Institute, to monitor and think through the issues.
It is hard to see how he will manage to reconcile freedom of speech on the internet with the requirement to prevent legal but harmful content.
A Platonic Guardian must reach a view on the conduct of a Homeric warrior – one whose passions are, in the view of her fellow guardians, trashing the state.
Such is the logic of the new Justice Secretary’s appointment – and the combative stance of the Attorney-General.
Here are six recent examples of how the Prime Minister has been mugged by reality.
The court’s verdict should encourage Johnson to stop the practice of public bodies pledging allegiance to Stonewall.
The new channel’s critics don’t understand the difference between impartiality, which is required, and bias, which is not.
Our introduction to: what each Bill is, the politics of it, who’s responsible, arguments for and against – and a controversy rating out of ten.
The upcoming Online Harms Bill must be as effective as possible in tackling the scourge of online abuse.
State action to regulate social media is unproblematic in principle, but deeply problematic in practice – and the law of unintended consequences applies.
We wouldn’t want constraints on free speech imposed on the basis of opaque agreements between platforms and politicians.
Dacre has said that he “would die in a ditch defending it as a great civilising force”, and Moore grasps the Corporation’s original Reithian mission.
A small community radio station with a few thousand listeners requires a license, but a social media channel with millions of individual subscribers does not.
Demanding the right to profit from promoting it while refusing to pay the costs is clearly indefensible.