This paper examines the complex issue of harmful but legal content (HBLC) moderation on the internet, focusing on the contentious nature of specific content categories regulation and the emergence of an alternative approach, regulating these categories under the umbrella of HBLC. It highlights the fundamental difference between legal and illegal content and the irony when platforms face more liability than the principal poster for failing to take down legal, albeit harmful content, posted by third parties. Instead, it argues that platforms should be held accountable for amplifying harmful content due to the role of their recommender systems in promoting this content for engagement purposes. While challenging to conceptualise, the concept of amplification regulation is scrutinised in relation to HBLC and the potential ways of implementing such regulation are examined. Furthermore, the paper delves into the dynamic between the State and online platforms in the context of HBLC and amplification regulation, emphasising the need for a balanced approach tailored to each jurisdiction's context.
