Controversial measures which would have forced big technology platforms to take down legal but harmful material have been axed from the Online Safety Bill.
Critics of the section in the bill claimed it posed a risk to free speech.
Culture Secretary Michelle Don élan denied weakening laws protecting social media users and said adults would have more control over what they saw online.
The bill - which aims to police the internet - is intended to become law in the UK before MPs break next summer.
It previously included a section which required "the largest, highest-risk platforms" to tackle some legal but harmful material accessed by adults.
It meant that the likes of Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, would have been tasked with preventing people being exposed to content like for example self-harm, eating disorder and misogynistic posts.
Instead, tech giants will be told to introduce a system allowing users more control to filter out harmful content they do not want to see.
Ms Donelan told the BBC the bill was not being watered down - and that tech companies had the expertise to protect people online.
"These are massive, massive corporations that have the money, the know how and the tech to be able to adhere to this," she said.
She warned that those who did not comply would face significant fines and "huge reputational damage".
Some critics of the provision in the bill have argued it opened the door for technology companies to censor legal speech.
The former leadership candidate for the Conservative Party said that he "legislated to do wrong".
And in July, nine senior Conservatives, including former ministers Lord Frost, David Davis and Steve Baker, who has since returned to the government, wrote a letter to then Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries, saying the provision could be used to clamp down on free speech by a future Labor government.
Adults will be able to access and post anything legal, provided a platform's terms of service allow it - although, children must still be protected from viewing harmful material.
Mr. Davis told the BBC that he was pleased that legal but prejudicial rights were taken out of the bill, but he still had other "serious worries" about the threat to privacy and freedom of expression which could "undermine end-to-end encryption".
In some instances, the bill allows the government to direct companies to use technology to review private messages.
"I urge the government to accept the amendments in my name to fix these technology notices so that they no longer pose a threat to encryption, which we all rely on to keep safe online," he said.
Lucy Powell MP, Labor's Shadow Culture Secretary, criticized the decision to remove obligations over "legal but harmful" material.
She said it gave a "Free pass for aggressors and takes the public for a ride" that it was "a major weakening, not strengthening, of the Bill".
But Ms Donelan told BBC the revised bill offered "a triple shield of protection - so it's certainly not weaker in any sense".
This requires platforms to:
- remove illegal content
- remove material that violates their terms and conditions
- give users controls to help them avoid seeing certain types of content to be specified by the bill
This could include content promoting eating disorders or inciting hate on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender reassignment- although, there will be exemptions to allow legitimate debate.
But the first two parts of the triple shield were already included in the draft bill.
You must be logged in to post a comment.