> Because of the scope of the act and the absence of a desire to force tech platforms to adopt specific technologies, this guidance was broad and principles-based – if the regulator prescribed specific measures, it would be accused of authoritarianism. Taking a principles-based approach is more sensible and future proof, but does allow tech companies to interpret the regulation poorly.

But, short of such an obvious breach, the rules regarding what can and can't be said, broadcast, forwarded, analysed are thought to be kept deliberately vague. In this way, everyone is on their toes and the authorities can shut down what they like at any time without having to give a reason. - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-41523073

It should also be noted that the article is written by "a former Ofcom policy manager", and current CEO of tech consultancy Illuminate Tech:

Illuminate tech is a bespoke research and advisory firm founded by former online safety regulators. We provide streamlined approaches to online safety audits and risk assessments, and evaluate the effectiveness of online safety measures. - https://www.illuminatetech.co.uk/

In other words, he's planning to get rich on consultancy fees.

Interesting to read the Ofcom perspective but I believe it to be naive, narrow and wrong.

That tech companies interpret the regulation "poorly (sic)" isn't on them, it is on the legislator. If any other version would warrant an accusation of "authoritarianism (sic)", perhaps the regulator should reconsider.