With the one caveat that I haven't seen text for this (I'm relying on second hand accounts here), this sounds better.
Some points:
1) "Potential perpetrators and victims should be warned where appropriate, for example if they try to search for abuse material using certain search words."
A lot of the time, when this sort of thing is implemented, it is usually fuzzier than suggested here. Searches which "might be associated" with it. It consequently has many false positives, it seems particularly when it comes to non-english terms.
Though, a warning (if non-blocking) is an improvement over what that other article appeared to say. Also, the devil is in the details, if it is everywhere (even where it is clearly inappropriate), it can become a one-size-fits-all solution (which can be disproportionate or harmful).
2) "Providers who become aware of clearly illegal material will be obliged to remove it – unlike in the EU Commission’s proposal."
It seems okay, so long as it isn't any more restrictive than 18 U.S.C. 2251. If 2251 is overly restrictive in some way I can't envisage, that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with that.
3) "Public chats at high risk of grooming are to be moderated."
What does "high risk" mean?
4) "It must be possible to block and report other users."
Does this require an account?
2) There's lobbying around getting the E.U. to spend time chasing things which aren't photographs (or their moving equivalents).
I think this would, all things considered, be a bad thing.
