Whenever the British describes one of its own laws as “world-leading,” it is all but guaranteed to be in some way catastrophic. The Online Safety Act (2023) is no exception to this. It was, as many laws demanding censorship of the internet are, initially about protecting children. It was billed as a measure to prevent under-18s from being exposed to sexually explicit content, the glorification of violence, alcohol, or drug use, and anything that might encourage self-harm. This apparently meant bringing in Ofcom, the British media regulator, to police the internet—including, initially, anything deemed to be “legal but harmful,” a clause that was thankfully dropped before the law was passed. Still, any site found guilty of letting kids access distressing material would face fines of up to £18 million or 10% of global turnover, whichever is higher. No price was high enough to ensure the UK became the “safest place to be online in the world.” Who could possibly object to that?
As it turns out, it’s not just perverts, cyberbullies, and assorted ne’er-do-wells who benefit from the internet remaining a free and open place. Last Friday, the British public was confronted with the realities of the Online Safety Act. Websites are now required to verify that all UK users are over 18 years old before allowing them to see any sort of age-restricted or potentially harmful content. This applies to porn sites as well as those selling nicotine or alcohol. But the act also covers any platform that hosts user-generated content, such as X, Facebook, and Reddit. Users have complained about having to upload scans of their ID or bank details, or have their faces scanned by AI in order to access pages that discuss anything remotely controversial or Not Safe For Work. The vast majority of this verification will be done by third-party providers.
Even more worryingly, X is now withholding some news content until users prove they’re over 18. Posts flagged as ‘sensitive’—notably, those covering the recent anti-migrant protests—are slapped with a notice declaring that “due to local laws, we are temporarily restricting access to this content until X estimates your age.” Conservative MP Katie Lam drew attention to one instance in which a video of her speech condemning the British state’s indifference to the mass rape of working-class girls at the hands of grooming gangs was, ironically, censored to protect children.
Almost immediately, Brits online found a workaround in the form of VPNs, which mask a user’s IP address and can trick servers into believing they are accessing a site from a different country. Over the weekend, downloads of various VPNs exploded—Nord VPN, for example, reported a 1,000% increase in purchases from the UK. Labour may now well ban VPNs in response.
Those UK users without a VPN may find that they’re unable to access many sites. For smaller websites in particular, implementing intrusive and costly age-verification processes isn’t worth it. Right-wing social media platform Gab now greets UK users with a message informing them that they are blocked due to the constraints of the Online Safety Act and to avoid handing over data to Ofcom. BitChute, a more free-speech-orientated alternative to YouTube, similarly explains that it will be “discontinuing its video-sharing service for UK residents” due to privacy concerns raised by the new regulations. Other sites have even chosen to shut down altogether. Totally harmless community forums—like a Renault electric vehicle owners’ club, a forum for single dads, and a site dedicated to hamster ownership—have been forced to shut down, unable to bear the costs of complying with the Online Safety Act. Even Wikipedia is considering implementing a quota system that would cap the number of British users allowed to access the site, preventing it from being classified as a ‘category one’ website.
The UK government isn’t alone in its attempts to censor the internet. Earlier this month, the EU rolled out a prototype app for age verifications as part of its already censorious Digital Services Act (DSA). As in the UK, the EU aims to restrict what sort of content children can be exposed to. Only, in this instance, Brussels plans to introduce a specialised app that, in theory, allows users to confirm their age without sharing sensitive data, like ID documents or banking info. Initial trials will take place in Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, and Spain, with the aim of eventually being introduced across the bloc. In what will come as a reassurance to approximately no one, the EU also boasts that this tech will hopefully be “fully interoperable with future EU Digital Identity Wallets.”
The DSA has wreaked enough havoc over the internet as it is. This draconian piece of legislation is regularly used to censor dissenting opinions under the guise of policing ‘disinformation.’ In particular, it has held Elon Musk and his social network, X, in its sights. The EU previously threatened to slap Musk with a €1 billion fine or to shut down X altogether for refusing to hand over data. Musk’s commitment to maintaining free speech on X means the site could also face penalties for not strictly adhering to the DSA’s anti-hate-speech rules.
The broad, vague definitions of the DSA mean that most social media companies end up over-regulating their platforms to avoid falling foul of EU law. One study found that between 87.5% and 99.7% of posts removed under the DSA were completely legal. The same will likely be true for the Online Safety Act—sites will be forced to cordon off or scrub any vaguely adult or controversial content, terrified of being fined into oblivion.
Most people would agree that there are certain things that children should be shielded from online. But sanitising and child-proofing the internet for everyone is no way to go about this. It is first and foremost the job of parents, not the government, to monitor what their kids get up to online, whether that’s by installing parental controls, setting time limits for devices, or any other means. There is no universe in which forcing adults to hand over private and sensitive information to access pages like r/cider or see video footage of protests happening in their own country will end well. The Online Safety Act, like the DSA, is virtually guaranteed to be weaponised by the state to crack down on uncomfortable views that challenge the narrative. Already in the UK, the police can turn up at your door if you make an off-colour joke or post an opinion deemed offensive. Let’s not forget that wife and mother Lucy Connolly is currently serving almost three years behind bars for a tweet. Anyone who believes they have ‘nothing to hide’ and therefore nothing to fear from this kind of online monitoring is gravely mistaken.
What we are witnessing right now is the death of the free internet and the birth of a new digital dictatorship. No longer can we be trusted to decide for ourselves what content is appropriate or correct. Everything must instead be filtered through the state’s definition of ‘safety,’ telling us what is safe to say, see, or believe. Under the guise of protecting children and fighting ‘hate,’ governments are creating the most comprehensive censorship apparatus the West has ever seen.
Say Goodbye to the Internet as We Know It
fancycrave1 from Pixabay
You may also like
Macron’s Ministry of Truth
Panic in the face of a country slipping out of his grasp? Macron intends to tighten his grip on public opinion and the press.
Why France’s Schools Are on the Verge of Collapse
A new report exposes how uncontrolled, unassimilated immigration is destroying the French education system.
Message from the U.S.: Sovereignty Lives—If You Have the Guts To Claim It
Principled national conservatism is the solution to the problems of our time, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said at a Lisbon conference.
Whenever the British describes one of its own laws as “world-leading,” it is all but guaranteed to be in some way catastrophic. The Online Safety Act (2023) is no exception to this. It was, as many laws demanding censorship of the internet are, initially about protecting children. It was billed as a measure to prevent under-18s from being exposed to sexually explicit content, the glorification of violence, alcohol, or drug use, and anything that might encourage self-harm. This apparently meant bringing in Ofcom, the British media regulator, to police the internet—including, initially, anything deemed to be “legal but harmful,” a clause that was thankfully dropped before the law was passed. Still, any site found guilty of letting kids access distressing material would face fines of up to £18 million or 10% of global turnover, whichever is higher. No price was high enough to ensure the UK became the “safest place to be online in the world.” Who could possibly object to that?
As it turns out, it’s not just perverts, cyberbullies, and assorted ne’er-do-wells who benefit from the internet remaining a free and open place. Last Friday, the British public was confronted with the realities of the Online Safety Act. Websites are now required to verify that all UK users are over 18 years old before allowing them to see any sort of age-restricted or potentially harmful content. This applies to porn sites as well as those selling nicotine or alcohol. But the act also covers any platform that hosts user-generated content, such as X, Facebook, and Reddit. Users have complained about having to upload scans of their ID or bank details, or have their faces scanned by AI in order to access pages that discuss anything remotely controversial or Not Safe For Work. The vast majority of this verification will be done by third-party providers.
Even more worryingly, X is now withholding some news content until users prove they’re over 18. Posts flagged as ‘sensitive’—notably, those covering the recent anti-migrant protests—are slapped with a notice declaring that “due to local laws, we are temporarily restricting access to this content until X estimates your age.” Conservative MP Katie Lam drew attention to one instance in which a video of her speech condemning the British state’s indifference to the mass rape of working-class girls at the hands of grooming gangs was, ironically, censored to protect children.
Almost immediately, Brits online found a workaround in the form of VPNs, which mask a user’s IP address and can trick servers into believing they are accessing a site from a different country. Over the weekend, downloads of various VPNs exploded—Nord VPN, for example, reported a 1,000% increase in purchases from the UK. Labour may now well ban VPNs in response.
Those UK users without a VPN may find that they’re unable to access many sites. For smaller websites in particular, implementing intrusive and costly age-verification processes isn’t worth it. Right-wing social media platform Gab now greets UK users with a message informing them that they are blocked due to the constraints of the Online Safety Act and to avoid handing over data to Ofcom. BitChute, a more free-speech-orientated alternative to YouTube, similarly explains that it will be “discontinuing its video-sharing service for UK residents” due to privacy concerns raised by the new regulations. Other sites have even chosen to shut down altogether. Totally harmless community forums—like a Renault electric vehicle owners’ club, a forum for single dads, and a site dedicated to hamster ownership—have been forced to shut down, unable to bear the costs of complying with the Online Safety Act. Even Wikipedia is considering implementing a quota system that would cap the number of British users allowed to access the site, preventing it from being classified as a ‘category one’ website.
The UK government isn’t alone in its attempts to censor the internet. Earlier this month, the EU rolled out a prototype app for age verifications as part of its already censorious Digital Services Act (DSA). As in the UK, the EU aims to restrict what sort of content children can be exposed to. Only, in this instance, Brussels plans to introduce a specialised app that, in theory, allows users to confirm their age without sharing sensitive data, like ID documents or banking info. Initial trials will take place in Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, and Spain, with the aim of eventually being introduced across the bloc. In what will come as a reassurance to approximately no one, the EU also boasts that this tech will hopefully be “fully interoperable with future EU Digital Identity Wallets.”
The DSA has wreaked enough havoc over the internet as it is. This draconian piece of legislation is regularly used to censor dissenting opinions under the guise of policing ‘disinformation.’ In particular, it has held Elon Musk and his social network, X, in its sights. The EU previously threatened to slap Musk with a €1 billion fine or to shut down X altogether for refusing to hand over data. Musk’s commitment to maintaining free speech on X means the site could also face penalties for not strictly adhering to the DSA’s anti-hate-speech rules.
The broad, vague definitions of the DSA mean that most social media companies end up over-regulating their platforms to avoid falling foul of EU law. One study found that between 87.5% and 99.7% of posts removed under the DSA were completely legal. The same will likely be true for the Online Safety Act—sites will be forced to cordon off or scrub any vaguely adult or controversial content, terrified of being fined into oblivion.
Most people would agree that there are certain things that children should be shielded from online. But sanitising and child-proofing the internet for everyone is no way to go about this. It is first and foremost the job of parents, not the government, to monitor what their kids get up to online, whether that’s by installing parental controls, setting time limits for devices, or any other means. There is no universe in which forcing adults to hand over private and sensitive information to access pages like r/cider or see video footage of protests happening in their own country will end well. The Online Safety Act, like the DSA, is virtually guaranteed to be weaponised by the state to crack down on uncomfortable views that challenge the narrative. Already in the UK, the police can turn up at your door if you make an off-colour joke or post an opinion deemed offensive. Let’s not forget that wife and mother Lucy Connolly is currently serving almost three years behind bars for a tweet. Anyone who believes they have ‘nothing to hide’ and therefore nothing to fear from this kind of online monitoring is gravely mistaken.
What we are witnessing right now is the death of the free internet and the birth of a new digital dictatorship. No longer can we be trusted to decide for ourselves what content is appropriate or correct. Everything must instead be filtered through the state’s definition of ‘safety,’ telling us what is safe to say, see, or believe. Under the guise of protecting children and fighting ‘hate,’ governments are creating the most comprehensive censorship apparatus the West has ever seen.
Our community starts with you
READ NEXT
Hungary: Scapegoat for Western European Failure
Keir Starmer: Dead Man Walking
Virtue and Defiance Can Stir Even the Darkest Ideologues