A law, regarded by some as contentious, has been approved by peers which is intended to hold social media firms accountable for the security of their users on their platforms.
It has taken years for an agreement to be reached on the Online Safety Bill, which mandates companies to take down unlawful content and shield children from some legal but injurious material.
The NSPCC, a charity for kids, expressed that the law would result in a more secure online environment.
Critics argued that a regulator and tech firms would be able to choose what could and could not be expressed on the web.
This nearly 300-page bill introduces new regulations, including the need for porn websites to verify the ages of their visitors so as to prevent minors from accessing their content.
Official government estimates have indicated that as many as 20,000 small businesses may also have to abide by the regulations laid out by the act, even though this is usually considered as a method of controlling Big Tech companies.
Organizations will be expected to demonstrate that they are dedicated to eliminating prohibited material, which includes:
The bill has been amended to incorporate additional offences, such as cyber-flashing and the dissemination of "deepfake" pornographic materials.
This bill seeks to facilitate bereaved parents in acquiring information from technology companies concerning their children.
The government committed to improving internet safety six years ago, kicking off a long and often complicated process for the bill to become law.
Prof Lorna Woods of the University of Essex and William Perrin of the charitable foundation Carnegie UK came up with the notion that spurred the bill when they wrote it down on the reverse side of a sandwich wrapper.
Prof Woods informed the BBC that he found it to be "slightly unreal" when he finally witnessed it pass.
"It's been a while and now it's finally here," she commented.
She has worries that the intricate nature of the act might lead to some of its elements being contested in court by tech giants.
I see the complexity as leading to that kind of challenge, which could then result in a hold-up of the regime being fully implemented.
The stories of those who have experienced losses and damage due to content posted on social media have been the primary motivation behind the bill.
Ian Russell, an advocate for online security, has stated to the BBC that the authenticity of the bill will be ascertained by whether or not it prevents the kind of content his daughter Molly encountered before she tragically ended her own life after viewing material related to suicide and self-harm on platforms like Instagram and Pinterest.
The Open Rights Group, a collective of digital rights activists, have warned that the bill in question presents an immense danger to liberty of speech as technology companies are likely to preside over what is permissible and then exercise limitation on what is expressed before it is even posted.
Graham Smith, a lawyer and writer of a book on web law, declared that despite having good intentions, the bill was marred with issues.
He declared to the BBC that if the path to damnation is lined up with good goals, this is a freeway.
He asserted that the bill was "badly conceived" and the danger it represented to free expression was probably "revealed in the legal system".
Popular messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal have threatened to not follow powers in the bill that would prompt them to inspect the contents of encrypted messages for any child abuse material.
Wikipedia has stated that it is incapable of meeting certain demands included within the bill.
Once the bill has been officially approved, Ofcom, the communications regulator, will be mainly responsible for its implementation.
Drafting codes of conduct to offer guidance on the implementation of the new regulations will be undertaken.
Failing to comply can lead to large fines of up to £18m, or, in some instances, individuals may even find themselves facing jail time.
A lot is dependent on the bill's success - not just the safety of both children and adults, but it could also have an effect on the UK's aspirations to be a tech hub, and perhaps, if not handled correctly, could even mean the loss of access to certain popular online services.
Prof Woods will deem the bill a success if social media companies and others take user worries more seriously.
She suggested that although it was unlikely we would be able to completely eliminate the things we don't like, it would be unrealistic to expect the world to be perfect.
Comments