This need careful consideration & informed debate - which it is unlikely to get in the HoC.
Something else to look out for in any new UK trade deals:
Zach Purser Brown@zachjourno

How the United States is exporting its legal protections for social media platforms around the world.

New U.S. trade deals, including USMCA, have had a highly controversial legal shield for tech companies inserted.
Foreign lawmakers are worried.
Section 230^ < see screenshot > has been called the 26 words that created the Internet.^
In essence, it’s a legal shield for tech companies, preventing liability for third party content.
And it has allowed the Internet to flourish.
Think how different Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia or Reddit would be if the platforms were legally responsible for everything users posted.
In fact, it is fundamental to the way social media platforms operate in the U.S.
But Section 230 has become highly controversial in recent years as drugs, child pornography, fake news and hate speech have all become prevalent online.
Activists accuse tech giants of using the law to absolve themselves from responsibility.
.....
And now language reflection Section 230 is being folded into trade deals and exported.
Here it is in USMCA: < photo 2 >
Pelosi said she was disappointed she hadn’t managed to remove it from USMCA,
but the political reality of Democrats needing to pass something other than impeachment before Christmas meant Section 230 fell by the wayside.
Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer stonewalled Congress when they invited him to explain why Section 230 was being inserted into the deals.
.....
It's in the U.S. Japan trade deal
And in the negotiating objectives for a deal with the European Union
And, perhaps most contentiously of all, it’s in the negotiating objectives for a post-Brexit trade deal with the U.K. < photo 3 >
It also popped up in the US/UK working group papers leaked to Labour ahead of the election.
Ironically, a confidential leak that first appeared on Reddit.
But here's the problem:
Section 230 is directly at odds with flagship “Online Harms” legislation currently in the works in the U.K.
That legislation would make platforms - and their executives - legally responsible for illegal or harmful content < photo 4 >
It was billed as an end to self-regulation for tech
.... < under Theresa May >
Admittedly, there is a new Prime Minister in town, but introducing the Online Harms bill remains government policy.
Indeed, it appeared in the Queen's Speech yesterday:
"My Ministers will develop legislation to improve internet safety for all."
That said, if you look in the background briefing, the language seems to have been watered down somewhat.
It has certainly backed away from calling time on self-regulation and is now ensuring the "UK remains one of the best places in the world" for tech companies.
@DamianCollins told me that if the UK accepted Section 230
"It could totally undermine anything we are trying to do in creating laws that hold tech companies to account for content on their platforms.
We need to be clear up from that that’s not something we’re prepared to do.”
Whether that turns out to be the UK government's position remains to be seen...
While the EU might be able to withstand US attempts to export Section 230, Britain is in a far weaker negotiating position.
Johnson needs a US/UK trade deal ASAP to show that Brexit was worth it.
This is exactly the sort of thing the UK government is going to have to swallow.
< probably from several countries, in its new naked state >