Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:UK Mandatory Digital ID Rollout for Employment 2025

2025-12-17T12:15:48Z

LegislationRepair: /* Relevancy discussion */ Reply

==Relevancy discussion==

Article seems like it is probably not relevant to the wiki. Unlike the OSA, which has severe data privacy and security issues inherent to the way it has been implemented, there's not much regarding the digital ID implementation that is specifically consumer rights related, rather than related to general civil rights. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 23:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

:I know nothing about the system besides what I read here, however it is hard for me to see how it isn't consumer rights related. It appears to be a system where the government determines who may be a consumer. (For most people, if you don't work then you don't get money, then you don't consume.) (Billionaires asside). Such a system would certainly have broad consumer impact. Rather like the social security number in the USA. They claimed it would just be for employment, and not be a national identification system. However it has evolved into much more than just employment (feature creep). It is a valuable target for identity theft, etc.
:Sorry if all that is irrelevant to this system, but I am short on time at the moment to research.
:What makes something consumer rights rather than civil rights? [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 01:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:I would like to broaden the focus of this article to Digital ID in general, since it's rolling out in several countries all at once. There are a few stories about personal information being leaked and undetected white hat security breaches in these systems that I believe it should cover. The UK Government also quietly funded the rollout of Digital ID in another country and use it as a success story to the UK public to justify it. They also said they were developing it in-house and had farmed it out to a private company in Romania. I'll need to collect sources, of course, but it's something I've been following closely.
:Privacy is a human right and consumers are human so I think it's relevant. What do you think, @[[User:Keith|Keith]]? [[User:LegislationRepair|LegislationRepair]] ([[User talk:LegislationRepair|talk]]) 12:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Europe-based news sites enact consent-or-pay for data tracking

2025-08-27T17:06:50Z

LegislationRepair: /* Why is it an issue */ Added definition of 'freely given' consent from the UK's Information Commissioner's Office.

{{Stub}}
{{ToneWarning}}
The Mirror and The Independent are UK-based news sites that have recently enacted the [[consent-or-pay]] model, creating a binary choice where readers must either consent to cookies or pay to avoid the data tracking.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /> This consent-or-pay model began rolling out on various websites when the UK and EU passed the [[General Data Protection Regulation|General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)]].

==Background==
After the [[GDPR]] passed in 2018, some companies responded to the regulation by enacting consent-or-pay, a model where users can either consent to data tracking via cookies or must pay a small sum to reject all cookies. The purpose of the payment is to offset the loss of ad revenue per viewer.

==Why is it an issue==
Because it violates the the [[General Data Protection Regulation|GDPR]], and it is also a ethical issue regarding privacy<ref>{{Cite news |last= |first= |date=November 28, 2023 |title=Meta's 'Pay or Okay' Model: Legal and Ethical Implications for Publishers |url=https://www.uniconsent.com/blog/risks-of-pay-or-consent-models |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250427063707/https://www.uniconsent.com/blog/risks-of-pay-or-consent-models |archive-date=27 Apr 2025 |access-date=26 Aug 2025 |work=UniConsent}}</ref>. The European Union at EDPB, adopted the "Opinion" following the requests of Dutch, Norway, and Hamburg DPA's (Data Protection Authorities) regarding the consent or pay models deployed by large, popular platforms such as [[Facebook]] and other platforms.<ref>{{Cite web |date=17 April 2024 |title=EDPB: ‘Consent or Pay’ models should offer real choice |url=https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2024/edpb-consent-or-pay-models-should-offer-real-choice_en |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240726233856/https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2024/edpb-consent-or-pay-models-should-offer-real-choice_en |archive-date=26 Jul 2024 |access-date=26 Aug 2025 |website=European Data Protection Board (EU)}}</ref>

According to the UK's Information Commissioner's Office, consent is defined as “any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her.” 'Freely given' is later defined as giving people genuine choice over how their data is used, meaning they must be able to refuse consent without detriment, and must be able to withdraw consent easily at any time.<ref>{{Cite web |title=What is valid consent? |url=https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/lawful-basis/consent/what-is-valid-consent/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250716030925/https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/lawful-basis/consent/what-is-valid-consent/ |archive-date=2025-07-16 |access-date=2025-08-27 |website=ICO {{!}} Information Commissioner's Office}}</ref>

==The Mirror==
The Mirror is an example of a publication that utilizes the consent-or-pay model. Upon loading [https://www.mirror.co.uk/| The Mirror's UK site] you will be shown a prompt to either pay to reject cookies and not be tracked by them for £1.99 per month, or accept all tracking cookies and continue to the site. It is also worth noting that the site which tells you that you need to pay to reject cookies says this.

<blockquote>[[File:The Mirror Cookie Disclosure Notice.png|alt=The Mirror Cookie Disclosure Notice containing text "We have introduced these choices in accordance with data protection regulations."|thumb|The Mirror's cookie disclosure notice with the options of "I Agree" or "Reject and Pay."]]''"We have introduced these choices in accordance with data protection regulations."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=15 August 2025 |title=The Mirror |url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/}}</ref>''</blockquote>

This is interesting to note as The Telegraph, which is another UK-based newspaper, still allows cookies to be rejected without paying.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=15 August 2025 |title=The Telegraph |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/}}</ref> Additionally, the fact that you have to pay to avoid this doesn't help the cause, either.

[[File:Www.themirror.com's cookie page.png|thumb|The Mirror's US version of the website displaying a cookie notice with the traditional "Accept All" or "Reject All" options.]]
The Mirror's ".com" domain allows users to reject or accept cookies for free unlike the ".co.uk" version.

==The Independent==
[[File:News The Independent Today's headlines and latest breaking news.jpeg.png|thumb|The Independent’s cookie notice with the title "Privacy - it's your choice." The notice then gives viewers the option to either "pay to remove ads" or "accept" data collection for targeted ads.]]
The independent also requires you to pay in order to reject cookies.<ref>{{Cite web |date=15 August 2025 |title=The Independent |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/}}</ref> It says that 'Free-thinking, independent journalism needs your support' as captured by Bron Maher and published August 6, 2024 to the PressGazette website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maher |first=Bron |date=6 Aug 2024 |title=Sun, Mail, Mirror, Express and Independent roll out ‘consent or pay’ walls |url=https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/daily-mail-independent-reach-mirror-express-consent-or-pay-cookies/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250725101104/https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/daily-mail-independent-reach-mirror-express-consent-or-pay-cookies/ |archive-date=25 Jul 2025 |access-date=26 Aug 2025 |website=pressgazette.co.uk}}</ref>

==See Also [rough work section until article is complete]==
This is meant to be removed later. There's more news publications that do this:

https://adguard.com/en/blog/media-pay-consent-scheme-ads.html

https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/daily-mail-independent-reach-mirror-express-consent-or-pay-cookies/

may want to work this quote in somewhere, it sums things up nicely:

"Among the major players that have embraced this scheme is The Sun, which asks for £4.99 a month, followed by The Independent at £4, and Mail Online at £2.70. Other publishers like Reach, which includes the Mirror and Express, are offering a “Privacy Plus” option for £1.99."<ref>{{Cite web |date=6 Nov 2024 |title=The new ‘pay or consent’ scheme in media: a costly illusion of choice |url=https://adguard.com/en/blog/media-pay-consent-scheme-ads.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250614135618/https://adguard.com/en/blog/media-pay-consent-scheme-ads.html |archive-date=14 Jun 2025 |access-date=26 Aug 2025 |website=adguard.com}}</ref>

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Incidents]]

Talk:Kerbal Space Program 2

2025-08-27T15:41:55Z

LegislationRepair: /* Kerbal Space Program 2? */ new section

== Kerbal Space Program 2? ==

I had to Google KSP2 to know what it was. I assume it's Kerbal Space Program 2. It would be a good idea to name the article after the full name rather than the acronym. [[User:LegislationRepair|LegislationRepair]] ([[User talk:LegislationRepair|talk]]) 15:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-27T15:24:18Z

LegislationRepair: /* Theo Browne, YouTuber & CEO at T3 Chat */ boiled down Theo Browne's section

{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2023-10-26
|Status=Active
|Type=Digital restrictions
|Description=On 26 October 2023, the UK Online Safety Act passed and became law. This act restricts the freedom of UK users of the internet and increases censorship.
|ArticleType=Legislation}}

United Kingdom's [[wikipedia:Online Safety Act 2023|Online Safety Act 2023]] is a set of laws that claims to protect children and adults online.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=April 24, 2025 |title=Online Safety Act: explainer |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer |website=Gov.uk}}</ref> The act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-4 Section 4]).

One of the duties of the act requires affected websites to implement their own solution for identity verification such that it is highly effective to prove one's age ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-12-6 Section 12.6]). There is no official government-sanctioned identity verification platform. Each service provider must implement their own solution or find a third party solution to use to remain compliant. Another duty filters non-verified users from interacting with content made from an "adult user" ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-15-10 Section 15.10])<ref name="rossmann:1">{{Cite web|date=August 1, 2025|last=Rossmann |first=Louis |title=Tea app & UK Online Safety Act - the world is becoming a black mirror episode :(| url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNNsCuEvR5w&t=114 |ref=rossmann:1 |website=[[YouTube]] |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref>. These non-verified users will also be less visible, provided the adult user has toggled it.

While the press release says "the measures platforms have to put in place must confirm your age without collecting or storing personal data, unless absolutely necessary,"<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Kyle |first=Peter |date=2025-08-01 |title=Keeping children safe online: changes to the Online Safety Act explained |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/keeping-children-safe-online-changes-to-the-online-safety-act-explained |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Gov.UK}}</ref> the legislation requires that companies track usage by specific people and provide data and/or remote access to Ofcom on demand ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-100 Section 100]) <ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |date=2025-07-25 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50 |journal=UK Public General Acts |volume=2023 |issue=50}}</ref>
Enforcement of this act is done by the UK's Office of Communications (Ofcom). The penalty for breaking these rules is the greater of £18 million and 10% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#schedule-13-paragraph-4 Schedule 13.4]).<ref name=":1" />

==Background==
The Online Safety Act is a "Bill to make provision for and in connection with the regulation by Ofcom of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes."<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2024-08-19 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=UK Parliament: Parliamentary Bills}}</ref>

The Online Safety Act received royal assent on 26 October 2023, following five years of work by Carnegie UK, working in concert with over 50 partners. In 2018, Carnegie UK published a series of blogs by William Perrin and Professor Lorna Woods, outlining the proposal for social media regulation. The UK Government published its [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper White Paper] on 8 April 2019, tackling online harm, with a duty of care approach at its core. Carnegie UK ended their work on the Online Safety Act in October 2023.<ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk">{{Cite web |last=Davidson |first=Sarah |date=26 October 2023 |title=Online safety and Carnegie UK |url=https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701203854/https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last=Sim |first=Kate |date=August 7, 2025| title=The Online Safety Act Has Nothing to Do With Child Safety and Everything to Do With Censorship| url=https://novaramedia.com/2025/08/07/the-online-safety-act-has-nothing-to-do-with-child-safety-and-everything-to-do-with-censorship/ |website=Novara Media |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref>

The bill was sponsored by Michelle Donelan, the (now former) Conservative MP for Chippenham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, a current member of the House of Lords. Both on behalf of the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. <ref name=":4" />

The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages. The original that reached royal assent on 26 October 2023 under Rishi Sunak's Conservative government, and the amended version in 2025, under Kier Starmer's Labour government. In February 2025, amendments related to making corporations more accountable for the content on their websites, as well as accountability for people accessing inappropriate content were brought to and voted on in parliament. The bill was changed again in May 2025 to include biometric face scans and government ID requirements, which was was not voted on in parliament.

[https://avpassociation.com/ Age Verification Providers Association (AVPA)] was formed in 2018 and is growing rapidly as the age and identity provider industry takes off. It represents all main technology suppliers who have invested in the development of age verification solutions to support the implementation of age restrictions online. <ref>{{Cite web |title=Age Verification Providers Association |url=https://avpassociation.com/}}</ref>

==The impact==
Since the UK Online Safety Act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other, <ref name=":2" /> it has a broad impact across the entire internet for those accessing websites from within the UK. All online services that Ofcom deems to be within the scope of the Online Safety Act must incorporate an identity verification process to determine each user's age.<ref name=":3" /> This has forced many websites to geo-block the UK because they are too small to justify or afford implementing their own the identity verification process or partnering with a third provider. A list of affected websites is available on [https://OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk].

The broad range of the act has caused content from breaking news,<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Koopman |first=Saskia |date=August 13, 2025 |title=Why the Online Safety Act has become a political nightmare |url=https://www.cityam.com/why-labours-online-safety-act-has-become-a-political-nightmare/ |website=City AM |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref> war footages,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maiberg |first=Emanuel |date=July 29, 2025 |title=UK Users Need to Post Selfie or Photo ID to View Reddit's r/IsraelCrimes, r/UkraineWarFootage |url=https://www.404media.co/uk-users-need-to-post-selfie-or-photo-id-to-view-reddits-r-israelcrimes-r-ukrainewarfootage/ |website=404 Media |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref> and political videos<ref name=":6" /> to be heavily suppressed and labelled "harmful".

===Spotify===
To view age-restricted content on [[Spotify]], users in the UK are now asked for facial scanning; if that fails, ID verification can only correct the error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |title=Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content |url=https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |access-date=3 August 2025 |work=404 Media |date=30 July 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250730160610/https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |archive-date=30 July 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===YouTube===
{{Main|Youtubes Requirement for Government ID}}
On July 30, 2025, [[YouTube]] responded by announcing its verification system, requesting users for either a government-issued ID, a photo, or credit card, in order to show that users are 18 and older. Age will be estimated through various information, including videos watched, and would lock users flagged below 18 unless they send one of aforementioned proofs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Michael |date=30 Jul 2025 |title=YouTube is Rolling Out A New Controversial Feature |url=https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |url-status=live |access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=GameRant}}</ref>

===Wikipedia===
The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On August 11, 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/}}</ref>

===4Chan===
4chan is a simple image-based bulletin board where anyone can post comments and share images

====Ofcom's investigation====
On 14 April 2025, Ofcom issued a formal information notice to the provider of the service 4chan requesting a copy of the record of its Illegal Content Risk Assessment, as part of our [https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/enforcement-programme-to-monitor-if-services-meet-their-illegal-content-risk-assessment-and-record-keeping-duties-under-the-online-safety-act-2023 Risk Assessment Enforcement Programme]. At the date of opening this investigation, no response has been received to the information notice. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-13 |title=Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users from illegal content |url=https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/investigation-into-4chan-and-its-compliance-with-duties-to-protect-its-users-from-illegal-content |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250615131417/https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/investigation-into-4chan-and-its-compliance-with-duties-to-protect-its-users-from-illegal-content |archive-date=2025-06-15 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=Ofcom}}</ref>

On 10 June 2025 Ofcom opened an investigation into "the online discussion board" 4chan. The investigation will consider 4chan's compliance with its duties under the Online Safety Act 2023. Ofcom has powers under [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-102-8 section 102(8)] of the Act to require persons to respond to an information notice in the manner and form specified.

On 13 August 2025, Ofcom, in accordance with section 130 of the Online Safety Act 2023, issued 4chan Community Support LLC with a provisional notice of contravention, believing they had reasonable grounds for believing 4chan has contravened its duties under section 102(8) of the Act to comply (Ofcom.org appears to have blocked Archive.org from this and other pages sometime in July 2025).

====4chan's response====
Attorneys Preston Byrne and Ron Coleman, acting for 4chan, responded publicly to Ofcom’s provisional notice, which accuses the American company of failing to meet information notice requirements and possibly breaching duties related to content moderation.

The attorneys described the UK’s actions as an “illegal campaign of harassment” targeting American tech firms and warned that this extraterritorial enforcement of censorship law was incompatible with the First Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Harper |first=Cindy |date=2025-08-18 |title=4chan Lawyers Fire Back as UK Tries to Censor from Across the Pond |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-lawyers-defend-4chan-against-uk-online-safety-act-enforcement |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Net}}</ref>

Since enforcement began, the UK’s media regulator Ofcom has reportedly sent formal notices to several US tech companies, instructing them to comply or face penalties. These letters have ignited backlash among American lawmakers, many of whom argue that Britain has crossed a line by trying to dictate speech rules to American businesses and citizens. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, along with other members of Congress, has taken his concerns directly to British ministers, raising objections with Science Secretary Peter Kyle.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Frieth |first=Dan |date=2025-07-31 |title=The White House Puts UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Notice Over UK’s Dangerous Online Censorship Laws |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-uk-clash-over-online-safety-act-free-speech |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Internet}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
According to analysis by Cloudwards, [[Google]] searches for "how to get around age verification" and "is VPN legal in the UK" saw a massive growth of over 450 thousand and 380 thousand percent respectively.<ref name=":5" /> United Kingdom saw an increased VPN usage by 1400 percent.<ref name="UK_VPN">{{Cite web |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=July 28, 2025 |title=UK VPN demand soars after debut of Online Safety Act |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/28/uk_vpn_demand_soars/ |access-date=August 15, 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref> As of August 16, 2025, there has been at least 500 thousand signatures petitioning to repeal the act.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Baynham |first=Alex |date=2025-04-22 |title=Repeal the Online Safety Act |url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 |website=Petitions: UK Government and Parliament}}</ref>

===SafetyAct.co.uk===
[https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/ OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk] is a website which was created in response to the Act's implementation and is operated by Neil Brown<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk |url=https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/contact/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk}}</ref>, a UK tech lawyer ([https://decoded.legal decoded.legal]).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=Neil Brown (@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk) |url=https://mastodon.neilzone.co.uk/@neil |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=mastodon.neilzone.co.uk}}</ref> It lists all of the websites affected by the Online Safety Act, with the help of user submissions.

===Use Their ID===
[https://use-their-id.com/ Use Their ID.com] is a parody site that uses publicly available data about UK members of parliament to create AI-generated mock driving licences. They are clearly marked as satire and users are warned not to use them for anything real. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-28 |title=Use Their ID |url=https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250730001620/https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-date=2025-07-30 |access-date=2025-08-17}}</ref>

==Industry expert response==
The act has been [https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/internet-fragmentation/uk-online-safety-act/ opposed] as early as December 2023 by Internet Society.

===Electronic Frontier Foundation===
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) posted an article entitled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online], and covers the threat to privacy of internet users and how the bill restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposing users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form ID excluded from accessing the internet.

"The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users—including children—rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collings |first=Paige |date=2025-08-01 |title=No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250812070622/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-date=2025-08-12 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

===Theo Browne, YouTuber & CEO at T3 Chat===
[[File:Online Safety Act- Offloading Responsibility. .png|thumb|Parents, government, platforms, identity providers]]Theo posted a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZozNjPcGw YouTube video] covering the Online Safety Act and how it going to destroy the free internet if internet community don't stop it ASAP. He said it's rare that he gets that extreme about something like this, but it's a really important thing that the community jump in front of.

The Online Safety Act will normalise providing your government-issued identification in order to see content, making everyone more susceptible and vulnerable to phishing attacks perpetrated by identity thieves. The act also shifts the responsibility of child safety to the government, who in turn shift it to the websites, who in turn shift it to a brand new identity and age verification industry.

==Government response==
Ofcom discouraged the promotion of VPNs.<ref name="UK_VPN" />

UK Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for debate. On 28 July 2025, when the petition to repeal the act had about 400,000 signatures, the government responded with this message: "The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.", only a few days after coming into force.<ref name=":0" /> This was only after three days (25 July 2025) the "highly effective age assurance" requirement came into force.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Department for Science, Innovation and Technology |date=2025-07-24 |title=Collection: Online Safety Act |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act |website=Gov.UK}}</ref>

The technology minister Peter Kyle said on Good Morning Britain, "if you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. Not those who want to keep children safe."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-07-29 |title=Peter Kyle Says 'Nigel Farage Is on the Side of Predators' |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-MaeOLISlA |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Good Morning Britain, Youtube}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}


[[Category:Legislation in Europe]]

Talk:UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-19T12:26:39Z

LegislationRepair: /* Comments */ Reply

==The Online Safety Act is a Conspiracy==

The Youtuber Cyber Waffle has been speaking with an MP and is working on setting up an interview. He goes over some things this MP told him in his video entitled "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAeEK_OMRso&t=301s The Online Safety Act is a Conspiracy]."

It would be great for the wiki to independently verify these claims that are made in the video for inclusion in this article. There are mentions of some damning things about Carnegie UK and profiting off of biometrics and identity confirmation systems. If verified and referenced, we could include articles on Carnegie and the third party identity verification companies to paint a broader picture.

[[User:LegislationRepair|LegislationRepair]] ([[User talk:LegislationRepair|talk]]) 16:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

==The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages.==

The legislation documents are very long and changes between versions are not easy to find. It would be great if someone has the time to comb through the different revisions and find where the identity verification was added. So far the only source for this info is what the Youtuber said the MP told him. There will hopefully be an interview with this MP so we can quote them directly but finding the source in the legislation would be best. [[User:LegislationRepair|LegislationRepair]] ([[User talk:LegislationRepair|talk]]) 17:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

==Comments==

The main comment I wanted to make was on the use of red links. Generally, red links should be used only where it is:

#expected that a page on the topic would be appropriate for the wiki, and
#a Wikipedia page does not exist for the relavent entity

If a reader is looking for additonal context about an involved entity, it will usually be more helpful to point them towards the relevant wikipedia page than to provide them with a red link here.

Other than that, I feel like Theo's section may be given undue weight? there's been an awful lot of commentary on the act out there so it should be possible to find more/better sources which make similar points but are more reputable.

It also probably needs some information explaining the different 'classes' that websites can be sorted into based on their size, content, and features, and how the requirements differ based on that. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 11:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

:Good call. I've remove the red links since anyone can come in and link a related article once it exists.
:I've read a lot of articles and watched a lot of videos on the Online Safety Act and its implications and haven't found anything that has broken down the duty of care like Theo. It would definitely be better for the article if someone found a better (written) source that cover the broader impacts of getting these things wrong. I believe the privacy and monitoring implications of this bill are what makes it most relevant to this wiki.
:Outlining the three different classes of websites outlined by the act is also a great idea.
:Thanks Keith! [[User:LegislationRepair|LegislationRepair]] ([[User talk:LegislationRepair|talk]]) 12:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-19T12:20:34Z

LegislationRepair: remove red links and standardise Ofcom's name. Officially they refer to themselves without capslock.

{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2023-10-26
|Status=Active
|Type=Digital restrictions
|Description=On 26 October 2023, the UK Online Safety Act passed and became law. This act restricts the freedom of UK users of the internet and increases censorship.
|ArticleType=Legislation}}

United Kingdom's [[wikipedia:Online Safety Act 2023|Online Safety Act 2023]] is a set of laws that claims to protect children and adults online.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=April 24, 2025 |title=Online Safety Act: explainer |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer |website=Gov.uk}}</ref> The act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-4 Section 4]).

One of the duties of the act requires affected websites to implement their own solution for identity verification such that it is highly effective to prove one's age ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-12-6 Section 12.6]). There is no official government-sanctioned identity verification platform. Each service provider must implement their own solution or find a third party solution to use to remain compliant.

While the press release says "the measures platforms have to put in place must confirm your age without collecting or storing personal data, unless absolutely necessary,"<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Kyle |first=Peter |date=2025-08-01 |title=Keeping children safe online: changes to the Online Safety Act explained |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/keeping-children-safe-online-changes-to-the-online-safety-act-explained |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Gov.UK}}</ref> the legislation requires that companies track usage by specific people and provide data and/or remote access to Ofcom on demand ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-100 Section 100]) <ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |date=2025-07-25 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50 |journal=UK Public General Acts |volume=2023 |issue=50}}</ref>
Enforcement of this act is done by the UK's Office of Communications (Ofcom). The penalty for breaking these rules is the greater of £18 million and 10% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#schedule-13-paragraph-4 Schedule 13.4]).<ref name=":1" />

==Background==
The Online Safety Act is a "Bill to make provision for and in connection with the regulation by Ofcom of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes."<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2024-08-19 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=UK Parliament: Parliamentary Bills}}</ref>

The Online Safety Act received royal assent on 26 October 2023, following five years of work by Carnegie UK, working in concert with over 50 partners. In 2018, Carnegie UK published a series of blogs by William Perrin and Professor Lorna Woods, outlining the proposal for social media regulation. The UK Government published its [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper White Paper] on 8 April 2019, tackling online harm, with a duty of care approach at its core. Carnegie UK ended their work on the Online Safety Act in October 2023.<ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk">{{Cite web |last=Davidson |first=Sarah |date=26 October 2023 |title=Online safety and Carnegie UK |url=https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701203854/https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref>

The bill was sponsored by Michelle Donelan, the (now former) Conservative MP for Chippenham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, a current member of the House of Lords. Both on behalf of the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. <ref name=":4" />

The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages. The original that reached royal assent on 26 October 2023 under Rishi Sunak's Conservative government, and the amended version in 2025, under Kier Starmer's Labour government. In February 2025, amendments related to making corporations more accountable for the content on their websites, as well as accountability for people accessing inappropriate content were brought to and voted on in parliament. The bill was changed again in May 2025 to include biometric face scans and government ID requirements, which was was not voted on in parliament.

[https://avpassociation.com/ Age Verification Providers Association (AVPA)] was formed in 2018 and is growing rapidly as the age and identity provider industry takes off. It represents all main technology suppliers who have invested in the development of age verification solutions to support the implementation of age restrictions online. <ref>{{Cite web |title=Age Verification Providers Association |url=https://avpassociation.com/}}</ref>

==The impact==
Since the UK Online Safety Act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other, <ref name=":2" /> it has a broad impact across the entire internet for those accessing websites from within the UK. All online services that Ofcom deems to be within the scope of the Online Safety Act must incorporate an identity verification process to determine each user's age.<ref name=":3" /> This has forced many websites to geo-block the UK because they are too small to justify or afford implementing their own the identity verification process or partnering with a third provider. A list of affected websites is available on [https://OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk].
===Spotify===
To view age-restricted content on [[Spotify]], users in the UK are now asked for facial scanning; if that fails, ID verification can only correct the error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |title=Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content |url=https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |access-date=3 August 2025 |work=404 Media |date=30 July 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250730160610/https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |archive-date=30 July 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===YouTube===
{{Main|Youtubes Requirement for Government ID}}
On July 30, 2025, [[YouTube]] responded by announcing its verification system, requesting users for either a government-issued ID, a photo, or credit card, in order to show that users are 18 and older. Age will be estimated through various information, including videos watched, and would lock users flagged below 18 unless they send one of aforementioned proofs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Michael |date=30 Jul 2025 |title=YouTube is Rolling Out A New Controversial Feature |url=https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |url-status=live |access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=GameRant}}</ref>

===Wikipedia===
The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On August 11, 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/}}</ref>

===4Chan===
4chan is a simple image-based bulletin board where anyone can post comments and share images

====Ofcom's investigation====
On 14 April 2025, Ofcom issued a formal information notice to the provider of the service 4chan requesting a copy of the record of its Illegal Content Risk Assessment, as part of our [https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/enforcement-programme-to-monitor-if-services-meet-their-illegal-content-risk-assessment-and-record-keeping-duties-under-the-online-safety-act-2023 Risk Assessment Enforcement Programme]. At the date of opening this investigation, no response has been received to the information notice. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-13 |title=Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users from illegal content |url=https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/investigation-into-4chan-and-its-compliance-with-duties-to-protect-its-users-from-illegal-content |archive-date=2025-06-15 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=Ofcom}}</ref>

On 10 June 2025 Ofcom opened an investigation into "the online discussion board" 4chan. The investigation will consider 4chan's compliance with its duties under the Online Safety Act 2023. Ofcom has powers under [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-102-8 section 102(8)] of the Act to require persons to respond to an information notice in the manner and form specified.

On 13 August 2025, Ofcom, in accordance with section 130 of the Online Safety Act 2023, issued 4chan Community Support LLC with a provisional notice of contravention, believing they had reasonable grounds for believing 4chan has contravened its duties under section 102(8) of the Act to comply (Ofcom.org appears to have blocked Archive.org from this and other pages sometime in July 2025).

====4chan's response====
Attorneys Preston Byrne and Ron Coleman, acting for 4chan, responded publicly to Ofcom’s provisional notice, which accuses the American company of failing to meet information notice requirements and possibly breaching duties related to content moderation.

The attorneys described the UK’s actions as an “illegal campaign of harassment” targeting American tech firms and warned that this extraterritorial enforcement of censorship law was incompatible with the First Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Harper |first=Cindy |date=2025-08-18 |title=4chan Lawyers Fire Back as UK Tries to Censor from Across the Pond |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-lawyers-defend-4chan-against-uk-online-safety-act-enforcement |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Net}}</ref>

Since enforcement began, the UK’s media regulator Ofcom has reportedly sent formal notices to several US tech companies, instructing them to comply or face penalties. These letters have ignited backlash among American lawmakers, many of whom argue that Britain has crossed a line by trying to dictate speech rules to American businesses and citizens. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, along with other members of Congress, has taken his concerns directly to British ministers, raising objections with Science Secretary Peter Kyle.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Frieth |first=Dan |date=2025-07-31 |title=The White House Puts UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Notice Over UK’s Dangerous Online Censorship Laws |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-uk-clash-over-online-safety-act-free-speech |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Internet}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
United Kingdom saw an increased VPN usage by 1400 percent.<ref name="UK_VPN">{{Cite web |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=July 28, 2025 |title=UK VPN demand soars after debut of Online Safety Act |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/28/uk_vpn_demand_soars/ |access-date=August 15, 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref> As of August 16, 2025, there has been at least 500 thousand signatures petitioning to repeal the act.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Baynham |first=Alex |date=2025-04-22 |title=Repeal the Online Safety Act |url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 |website=Petitions: UK Government and Parliament}}</ref>

===SafetyAct.co.uk===
[https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/ OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk] is a website which was created in response to the Act's implementation and is operated by Neil Brown<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk |url=https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/contact/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk}}</ref>, a UK tech lawyer ([https://decoded.legal decoded.legal]).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=Neil Brown (@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk) |url=https://mastodon.neilzone.co.uk/@neil |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=mastodon.neilzone.co.uk}}</ref> It lists all of the websites affected by the Online Safety Act, with the help of user submissions.

===Use Their ID===
[https://use-their-id.com/ Use Their ID.com] is a parody site that uses publicly available data about UK members of parliament to create AI-generated mock driving licences. They are clearly marked as satire and users are warned not to use them for anything real. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-28 |title=Use Their ID |url=https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250730001620/https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-date=2025-07-30 |access-date=2025-08-17}}</ref>

==Industry expert response==

===Electronic Frontier Foundation===
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) posted an article entitled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online], and covers the threat to privacy of internet users and how the bill restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposing users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form ID excluded from accessing the internet.

"The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users—including children—rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collings |first=Paige |date=2025-08-01 |title=No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250812070622/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-date=2025-08-12 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

===Theo Browne, YouTuber & CEO at T3 Chat===
Theo posted a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZozNjPcGw YouTube video] covering the Online Safety Act and how it going to destroy the free internet if internet community don't stop it ASAP. He said it's rare that he gets that extreme about something like this, but it's a really important thing that the community jump in front of. In his opinion, this is the fist time something this potentially damaging has been implemented in decades.

====Data Protection concerns====
The Online Safety Act will normalise providing your government-issued identification in order to see content, making everyone more susceptible and vulnerable to phishing attacks perpetrated by identity thieves.

"The only winners of this shit are VPN companies and identity providers."
[[File:Online Safety Act- Offloading Responsibility. .png|thumb|Parents, government, platforms, identity providers]]

====Offloaded responsibility====
By continuing to shift the responsibility down the pipe, we are increasing the potential harm for when it goes wrong. "Who is harmed if they fail their responsibility?"

=====Parents=====
when parents do a bad job of protecting their kids, the kid sees things that they shouldn't.

=====Governments=====
If the government does a bad job of helping the parents protect their kids, it could destroy the open internet.

=====Platforms=====
If the platform does a bad job of verifying the kids using the rules the government gave them, personal info starts to leak.

=====Third party identity verification providers=====
We've massively increased the opportunity and the like surface area of identity attacks and identity theft in general. We've made the internet less free and we've made it way harder to share information and we gave a ton of money to VPN companies for no reason.

==Government response==
Ofcom discouraged the promotion of VPNs.<ref name="UK_VPN" />

UK Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for debate. On 28 July 2025, when the petition to repeal the act had about 400,000 signatures, the government responded with this message: "The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.", only a few days after coming into force.<ref name=":0" /> This was only after three days (25 July 2025) the "highly effective age assurance" requirement came into force.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Department for Science, Innovation and Technology |date=2025-07-24 |title=Collection: Online Safety Act |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act |website=Gov.UK}}</ref>

The technology minister Peter Kyle said on Good Morning Britain, "if you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. Not those who want to keep children safe."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-07-29 |title=Peter Kyle Says 'Nigel Farage Is on the Side of Predators' |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-MaeOLISlA |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Good Morning Britain, Youtube}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Legislation in Europe]]

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-18T23:19:43Z

LegislationRepair: remove guide/suggestion box from impact section

{{StubNotice}}
{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2023-10-26
|Status=Active
|Type=Digital restrictions
|Description=On 26 October 2023, the UK Online Safety Act passed and became law. This act restricts the freedom of UK users of the internet and increases censorship.
|ArticleType=Legislation}}

United Kingdom's [[wikipedia:Online Safety Act 2023|Online Safety Act 2023]] is a set of laws that claims to protect children and adults online.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=April 24, 2025 |title=Online Safety Act: explainer |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer |website=Gov.uk}}</ref> The act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-4 Section 4]).

One of the duties of the act requires affected websites to implement their own solution for identity verification such that it is highly effective to prove one's age ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-12-6 Section 12.6]). There is no official government-sanctioned identity verification platform. Each service provider must implement their own solution or find a third party solution to use to remain compliant.

While the press release says "the measures platforms have to put in place must confirm your age without collecting or storing personal data, unless absolutely necessary,"<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Kyle |first=Peter |date=2025-08-01 |title=Keeping children safe online: changes to the Online Safety Act explained |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/keeping-children-safe-online-changes-to-the-online-safety-act-explained |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Gov.UK}}</ref> the legislation requires that companies track usage by specific people and provide data and/or remote access to Ofcom on demand ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-100 Section 100]) <ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |date=2025-07-25 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50 |journal=UK Public General Acts |volume=2023 |issue=50}}</ref>
Enforcement of this act is done by the UK's Office of Communications ([[OFCOM]]). The penalty for breaking these rules is the greater of £18 million and 10% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#schedule-13-paragraph-4 Schedule 13.4]).<ref name=":1" />

==Background==
The Online Safety Act is a "Bill to make provision for and in connection with the regulation by [[OFCOM]] of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes."<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2024-08-19 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=UK Parliament: Parliamentary Bills}}</ref>

The Online Safety Act received royal assent on 26 October 2023, following five years of work by [[Carnegie UK]], working in concert with over 50 partners. In 2018, Carnegie UK published a series of blogs by [[William Perrin]] and [[Professor Lorna Woods]], outlining the proposal for social media regulation. The UK Government published its [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper White Paper] on 8 April 2019, tackling online harm, with a duty of care approach at its core. Carnegie UK ended their work on the Online Safety Act in October 2023.<ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk">{{Cite web |last=Davidson |first=Sarah |date=26 October 2023 |title=Online safety and Carnegie UK |url=https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701203854/https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref>

The bill was sponsored by [[Michelle Donelan]], the (now former) Conservative MP for Chippenham and [[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]], a current member of the House of Lords. Both on behalf of the [[UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport]]. <ref name=":4" />

The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages. The original that reached royal assent on 26 October 2023 under [[Rishi Sunak]]'s Conservative government, and the amended version in 2025, under [[Kier Starmer]]'s Labour government. In February 2025, amendments related to making corporations more accountable for the content on their websites, as well as accountability for people accessing inappropriate content were brought to and voted on in parliament. The bill was changed again in May 2025 to include biometric face scans and government ID requirements, which was was not voted on in parliament.

[[Age Verification Providers Association]] (AVPA) was formed in 2018 and is growing rapidly as the age and identity provider industry takes off. It represents all main technology suppliers who have invested in the development of age verification solutions to support the implementation of age restrictions online. <ref>{{Cite web |title=Age Verification Providers Association |url=https://avpassociation.com/}}</ref>

==The impact==
Since the UK Online Safety Act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other, <ref name=":2" /> it has a broad impact across the entire internet for those accessing websites from within the UK. All online services that [[OFCOM]] deems to be within the scope of the Online Safety Act must incorporate an identity verification process to determine each user's age.<ref name=":3" /> This has forced many websites to geo-block the UK because they are too small to justify or afford implementing their own the identity verification process or partnering with a third provider. A list of affected websites is available on [https://OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk].
===Spotify===
To view age-restricted content on [[Spotify]], users in the UK are now asked for facial scanning; if that fails, ID verification can only correct the error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |title=Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content |url=https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |access-date=3 August 2025 |work=404 Media |date=30 July 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250730160610/https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |archive-date=30 July 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===YouTube===
{{Main|Youtubes Requirement for Government ID}}
On July 30, 2025, [[YouTube]] responded by announcing its verification system, requesting users for either a government-issued ID, a photo, or credit card, in order to show that users are 18 and older. Age will be estimated through various information, including videos watched, and would lock users flagged below 18 unless they send one of aforementioned proofs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Michael |date=30 Jul 2025 |title=YouTube is Rolling Out A New Controversial Feature |url=https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |url-status=live |access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=GameRant}}</ref>

===Wikipedia===
The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On August 11, 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/}}</ref>

===4Chan===
[[4chan]] is a simple image-based bulletin board where anyone can post comments and share images

====Ofcom's investigation====
On 14 April 2025, [[OFCOM|Ofcom]] issued a formal information notice to the provider of the service [[4chan]] requesting a copy of the record of its Illegal Content Risk Assessment, as part of our [https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/enforcement-programme-to-monitor-if-services-meet-their-illegal-content-risk-assessment-and-record-keeping-duties-under-the-online-safety-act-2023 Risk Assessment Enforcement Programme]. At the date of opening this investigation, no response has been received to the information notice. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-13 |title=Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users from illegal content |url=https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/investigation-into-4chan-and-its-compliance-with-duties-to-protect-its-users-from-illegal-content |archive-date=2025-06-15 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=Ofcom}}</ref>

On 10 June 2025 Ofcom opened an investigation into "the online discussion board" 4chan. The investigation will consider 4chan's compliance with its duties under the Online Safety Act 2023. Ofcom has powers under [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-102-8 section 102(8)] of the Act to require persons to respond to an information notice in the manner and form specified.

On 13 August 2025, Ofcom, in accordance with section 130 of the Online Safety Act 2023, issued 4chan Community Support LLC with a provisional notice of contravention, believing they had reasonable grounds for believing 4chan has contravened its duties under section 102(8) of the Act to comply (Ofcom.org appears to have blocked Archive.org from this and other pages sometime in July 2025).

====4chan's response====
Attorneys Preston Byrne and Ron Coleman, acting for 4chan, responded publicly to Ofcom’s provisional notice, which accuses the American company of failing to meet information notice requirements and possibly breaching duties related to content moderation.

The attorneys described the UK’s actions as an “illegal campaign of harassment” targeting American tech firms and warned that this extraterritorial enforcement of censorship law was incompatible with the First Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Harper |first=Cindy |date=2025-08-18 |title=4chan Lawyers Fire Back as UK Tries to Censor from Across the Pond |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-lawyers-defend-4chan-against-uk-online-safety-act-enforcement |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Net}}</ref>

Since enforcement began, the UK’s media regulator Ofcom has reportedly sent formal notices to several US tech companies, instructing them to comply or face penalties. These letters have ignited backlash among American lawmakers, many of whom argue that Britain has crossed a line by trying to dictate speech rules to American businesses and citizens. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, along with other members of Congress, has taken his concerns directly to British ministers, raising objections with Science Secretary Peter Kyle.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Frieth |first=Dan |date=2025-07-31 |title=The White House Puts UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Notice Over UK’s Dangerous Online Censorship Laws |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-uk-clash-over-online-safety-act-free-speech |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Internet}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
{{Ph-I-ConR}}
United Kingdom saw an increased VPN usage by 1400 percent.<ref name="UK_VPN">{{Cite web |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=July 28, 2025 |title=UK VPN demand soars after debut of Online Safety Act |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/28/uk_vpn_demand_soars/ |access-date=August 15, 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref> As of August 16, 2025, there has been at least 500 thousand signatures petitioning to repeal the act.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Baynham |first=Alex |date=2025-04-22 |title=Repeal the Online Safety Act |url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 |website=Petitions: UK Government and Parliament}}</ref>

===SafetyAct.co.uk===
[https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/ OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk] is operated by Neil Brown<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk |url=https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/contact/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk}}</ref>, a UK tech lawyer ([https://decoded.legal decoded.legal]).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=Neil Brown (@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk) |url=https://mastodon.neilzone.co.uk/@neil |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=mastodon.neilzone.co.uk}}</ref> It lists all of the websites affected by the Online Safety Act, with the help of user submissions.

===Use Their ID===
[https://use-their-id.com/ Use Their ID.com] is a parody site that uses publicly available data about UK members of parliament to create AI-generated mock driving licences. They are clearly marked as satire and users are warned not to use them for anything real. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-28 |title=Use Their ID |url=https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250730001620/https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-date=2025-07-30 |access-date=2025-08-17}}</ref>

==Industry expert response==

===Electronic Frontier Foundation===
The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) posted an article entitled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online], and covers the threat to privacy of internet users and how the bill restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposing users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form ID excluded from accessing the internet.

"The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users—including children—rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collings |first=Paige |date=2025-08-01 |title=No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250812070622/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-date=2025-08-12 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

===Theo Browne, YouTuber & CEO at T3 Chat===
Theo posted a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZozNjPcGw YouTube video] covering the Online Safety Act and how it going to destroy the free internet if internet community don't stop it ASAP. He said it's rare that he gets that extreme about something like this, but it's a really important thing that the community jump in front of. In his opinion, this is the fist time something this potentially damaging has been implemented in decades.

====Data Protection concerns====
The Online Safety Act will normalise providing your government-issued identification in order to see content, making everyone more susceptible and vulnerable to phishing attacks perpetrated by identity thieves.

"The only winners of this shit are VPN companies and identity providers."
[[File:Online Safety Act- Offloading Responsibility. .png|thumb|Parents, government, platforms, identity providers]]

====Offloaded responsibility====
By continuing to shift the responsibility down the pipe, we are increasing the potential harm for when it goes wrong. "Who is harmed if they fail their responsibility?"

=====Parents=====
when parents do a bad job of protecting their kids, the kid sees things that they shouldn't.

=====Governments=====
If the government does a bad job of helping the parents protect their kids, it could destroy the open internet.

=====Platforms=====
If the platform does a bad job of verifying the kids using the rules the government gave them, personal info starts to leak.

=====Third party identity verification providers=====
We've massively increased the opportunity and the like surface area of identity attacks and identity theft in general. We've made the internet less free and we've made it way harder to share information and we gave a ton of money to VPN companies for no reason.

==Government response==
Ofcom discouraged the promotion of VPNs.<ref name="UK_VPN" />

UK Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for debate. On 28 July 2025, when the petition to repeal the act had about 400,000 signatures, the government responded with this message: "The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.", only a few days after coming into force.<ref name=":0" /> This was only after three days (25 July 2025) the "highly effective age assurance" requirement came into force.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Department for Science, Innovation and Technology |date=2025-07-24 |title=Collection: Online Safety Act |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act |website=Gov.UK}}</ref>

The technology minister [[Peter Kyle]] said on Good Morning Britain, "if you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. Not those who want to keep children safe."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-07-29 |title=Peter Kyle Says 'Nigel Farage Is on the Side of Predators' |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-MaeOLISlA |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Good Morning Britain, Youtube}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Legislation in Europe]]

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-18T23:17:15Z

LegislationRepair: /* The impact */ new section for 4chan

{{StubNotice}}
{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2023-10-26
|Status=Active
|Type=Digital restrictions
|Description=On 26 October 2023, the UK Online Safety Act passed and became law. This act restricts the freedom of UK users of the internet and increases censorship.
|ArticleType=Legislation}}

United Kingdom's [[wikipedia:Online Safety Act 2023|Online Safety Act 2023]] is a set of laws that claims to protect children and adults online.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=April 24, 2025 |title=Online Safety Act: explainer |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer |website=Gov.uk}}</ref> The act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-4 Section 4]).

One of the duties of the act requires affected websites to implement their own solution for identity verification such that it is highly effective to prove one's age ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-12-6 Section 12.6]). There is no official government-sanctioned identity verification platform. Each service provider must implement their own solution or find a third party solution to use to remain compliant.

While the press release says "the measures platforms have to put in place must confirm your age without collecting or storing personal data, unless absolutely necessary,"<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Kyle |first=Peter |date=2025-08-01 |title=Keeping children safe online: changes to the Online Safety Act explained |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/keeping-children-safe-online-changes-to-the-online-safety-act-explained |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Gov.UK}}</ref> the legislation requires that companies track usage by specific people and provide data and/or remote access to Ofcom on demand ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-100 Section 100]) <ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |date=2025-07-25 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50 |journal=UK Public General Acts |volume=2023 |issue=50}}</ref>
Enforcement of this act is done by the UK's Office of Communications ([[OFCOM]]). The penalty for breaking these rules is the greater of £18 million and 10% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#schedule-13-paragraph-4 Schedule 13.4]).<ref name=":1" />

==Background==
The Online Safety Act is a "Bill to make provision for and in connection with the regulation by [[OFCOM]] of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes."<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2024-08-19 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=UK Parliament: Parliamentary Bills}}</ref>

The Online Safety Act received royal assent on 26 October 2023, following five years of work by [[Carnegie UK]], working in concert with over 50 partners. In 2018, Carnegie UK published a series of blogs by [[William Perrin]] and [[Professor Lorna Woods]], outlining the proposal for social media regulation. The UK Government published its [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper White Paper] on 8 April 2019, tackling online harm, with a duty of care approach at its core. Carnegie UK ended their work on the Online Safety Act in October 2023.<ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk">{{Cite web |last=Davidson |first=Sarah |date=26 October 2023 |title=Online safety and Carnegie UK |url=https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701203854/https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref>

The bill was sponsored by [[Michelle Donelan]], the (now former) Conservative MP for Chippenham and [[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]], a current member of the House of Lords. Both on behalf of the [[UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport]]. <ref name=":4" />

The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages. The original that reached royal assent on 26 October 2023 under [[Rishi Sunak]]'s Conservative government, and the amended version in 2025, under [[Kier Starmer]]'s Labour government. In February 2025, amendments related to making corporations more accountable for the content on their websites, as well as accountability for people accessing inappropriate content were brought to and voted on in parliament. The bill was changed again in May 2025 to include biometric face scans and government ID requirements, which was was not voted on in parliament.

[[Age Verification Providers Association]] (AVPA) was formed in 2018 and is growing rapidly as the age and identity provider industry takes off. It represents all main technology suppliers who have invested in the development of age verification solutions to support the implementation of age restrictions online. <ref>{{Cite web |title=Age Verification Providers Association |url=https://avpassociation.com/}}</ref>

==The impact==
Since the UK Online Safety Act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other, <ref name=":2" /> it has a broad impact across the entire internet for those accessing websites from within the UK. All online services that [[OFCOM]] deems to be within the scope of the Online Safety Act must incorporate an identity verification process to determine each user's age.<ref name=":3" /> This has forced many websites to geo-block the UK because they are too small to justify or afford implementing their own the identity verification process or partnering with a third provider. A list of affected websites is available on [https://OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk]. {{Ph-I-I}}

===Spotify===
To view age-restricted content on [[Spotify]], users in the UK are now asked for facial scanning; if that fails, ID verification can only correct the error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |title=Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content |url=https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |access-date=3 August 2025 |work=404 Media |date=30 July 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250730160610/https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |archive-date=30 July 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===YouTube===
{{Main|Youtubes Requirement for Government ID}}
On July 30, 2025, [[YouTube]] responded by announcing its verification system, requesting users for either a government-issued ID, a photo, or credit card, in order to show that users are 18 and older. Age will be estimated through various information, including videos watched, and would lock users flagged below 18 unless they send one of aforementioned proofs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Michael |date=30 Jul 2025 |title=YouTube is Rolling Out A New Controversial Feature |url=https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |url-status=live |access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=GameRant}}</ref>

===Wikipedia===
The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On August 11, 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/}}</ref>

=== 4Chan ===
[[4chan]] is a simple image-based bulletin board where anyone can post comments and share images

==== Ofcom's investigation ====
On 14 April 2025, [[OFCOM|Ofcom]] issued a formal information notice to the provider of the service [[4chan]] requesting a copy of the record of its Illegal Content Risk Assessment, as part of our [https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/enforcement-programme-to-monitor-if-services-meet-their-illegal-content-risk-assessment-and-record-keeping-duties-under-the-online-safety-act-2023 Risk Assessment Enforcement Programme]. At the date of opening this investigation, no response has been received to the information notice. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-13 |title=Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users from illegal content |url=https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/investigation-into-4chan-and-its-compliance-with-duties-to-protect-its-users-from-illegal-content |archive-date=2025-06-15 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=Ofcom}}</ref>

On 10 June 2025 Ofcom opened an investigation into "the online discussion board" 4chan. The investigation will consider 4chan's compliance with its duties under the Online Safety Act 2023. Ofcom has powers under [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-102-8 section 102(8)] of the Act to require persons to respond to an information notice in the manner and form specified.

On 13 August 2025, Ofcom, in accordance with section 130 of the Online Safety Act 2023, issued 4chan Community Support LLC with a provisional notice of contravention, believing they had reasonable grounds for believing 4chan has contravened its duties under section 102(8) of the Act to comply (Ofcom.org appears to have blocked Archive.org from this and other pages sometime in July 2025).

==== 4chan's response ====
Attorneys Preston Byrne and Ron Coleman, acting for 4chan, responded publicly to Ofcom’s provisional notice, which accuses the American company of failing to meet information notice requirements and possibly breaching duties related to content moderation.

The attorneys described the UK’s actions as an “illegal campaign of harassment” targeting American tech firms and warned that this extraterritorial enforcement of censorship law was incompatible with the First Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Harper |first=Cindy |date=2025-08-18 |title=4chan Lawyers Fire Back as UK Tries to Censor from Across the Pond |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-lawyers-defend-4chan-against-uk-online-safety-act-enforcement |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Net}}</ref>

Since enforcement began, the UK’s media regulator Ofcom has reportedly sent formal notices to several US tech companies, instructing them to comply or face penalties. These letters have ignited backlash among American lawmakers, many of whom argue that Britain has crossed a line by trying to dictate speech rules to American businesses and citizens. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, along with other members of Congress, has taken his concerns directly to British ministers, raising objections with Science Secretary Peter Kyle.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Frieth |first=Dan |date=2025-07-31 |title=The White House Puts UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Notice Over UK’s Dangerous Online Censorship Laws |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-uk-clash-over-online-safety-act-free-speech |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Internet}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
{{Ph-I-ConR}}
United Kingdom saw an increased VPN usage by 1400 percent.<ref name="UK_VPN">{{Cite web |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=July 28, 2025 |title=UK VPN demand soars after debut of Online Safety Act |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/28/uk_vpn_demand_soars/ |access-date=August 15, 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref> As of August 16, 2025, there has been at least 500 thousand signatures petitioning to repeal the act.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Baynham |first=Alex |date=2025-04-22 |title=Repeal the Online Safety Act |url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 |website=Petitions: UK Government and Parliament}}</ref>

===SafetyAct.co.uk===
[https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/ OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk] is operated by Neil Brown<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk |url=https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/contact/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk}}</ref>, a UK tech lawyer ([https://decoded.legal decoded.legal]).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=Neil Brown (@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk) |url=https://mastodon.neilzone.co.uk/@neil |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=mastodon.neilzone.co.uk}}</ref> It lists all of the websites affected by the Online Safety Act, with the help of user submissions.

===Use Their ID===
[https://use-their-id.com/ Use Their ID.com] is a parody site that uses publicly available data about UK members of parliament to create AI-generated mock driving licences. They are clearly marked as satire and users are warned not to use them for anything real. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-28 |title=Use Their ID |url=https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250730001620/https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-date=2025-07-30 |access-date=2025-08-17}}</ref>

==Industry expert response==

===Electronic Frontier Foundation===
The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) posted an article entitled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online], and covers the threat to privacy of internet users and how the bill restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposing users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form ID excluded from accessing the internet.

"The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users—including children—rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collings |first=Paige |date=2025-08-01 |title=No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250812070622/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-date=2025-08-12 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

===Theo Browne, YouTuber & CEO at T3 Chat===
Theo posted a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZozNjPcGw YouTube video] covering the Online Safety Act and how it going to destroy the free internet if internet community don't stop it ASAP. He said it's rare that he gets that extreme about something like this, but it's a really important thing that the community jump in front of. In his opinion, this is the fist time something this potentially damaging has been implemented in decades.

====Data Protection concerns====
The Online Safety Act will normalise providing your government-issued identification in order to see content, making everyone more susceptible and vulnerable to phishing attacks perpetrated by identity thieves.

"The only winners of this shit are VPN companies and identity providers."
[[File:Online Safety Act- Offloading Responsibility. .png|thumb|Parents, government, platforms, identity providers]]

====Offloaded responsibility====
By continuing to shift the responsibility down the pipe, we are increasing the potential harm for when it goes wrong. "Who is harmed if they fail their responsibility?"

=====Parents=====
when parents do a bad job of protecting their kids, the kid sees things that they shouldn't.

=====Governments=====
If the government does a bad job of helping the parents protect their kids, it could destroy the open internet.

=====Platforms=====
If the platform does a bad job of verifying the kids using the rules the government gave them, personal info starts to leak.

=====Third party identity verification providers=====
We've massively increased the opportunity and the like surface area of identity attacks and identity theft in general. We've made the internet less free and we've made it way harder to share information and we gave a ton of money to VPN companies for no reason.

==Government response==
Ofcom discouraged the promotion of VPNs.<ref name="UK_VPN" />

UK Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for debate. On 28 July 2025, when the petition to repeal the act had about 400,000 signatures, the government responded with this message: "The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.", only a few days after coming into force.<ref name=":0" /> This was only after three days (25 July 2025) the "highly effective age assurance" requirement came into force.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Department for Science, Innovation and Technology |date=2025-07-24 |title=Collection: Online Safety Act |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act |website=Gov.UK}}</ref>

The technology minister [[Peter Kyle]] said on Good Morning Britain, "if you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. Not those who want to keep children safe."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-07-29 |title=Peter Kyle Says 'Nigel Farage Is on the Side of Predators' |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-MaeOLISlA |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Good Morning Britain, Youtube}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Legislation in Europe]]

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-18T08:08:58Z

LegislationRepair: /* Use Their ID */ name the website rather than say "this"

{{StubNotice}}
{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2023-10-26
|Status=Active
|Type=Digital restrictions
|Description=On 26 October 2023, the UK Online Safety Act passed and became law. This act restricts the freedom of UK users of the internet and increases censorship.
|ArticleType=Legislation}}

United Kingdom's [[wikipedia:Online Safety Act 2023|Online Safety Act 2023]] is a set of laws that claims to protect children and adults online.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=April 24, 2025 |title=Online Safety Act: explainer |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer |website=Gov.uk}}</ref> The act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-4 Section 4]).

One of the duties of the act requires affected websites to implement their own solution for identity verification such that it is highly effective to prove one's age ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-12-6 Section 12.6]). There is no official government-sanctioned identity verification platform. Each service provider must implement their own solution or find a third party solution to use to remain compliant.

While the press release says "the measures platforms have to put in place must confirm your age without collecting or storing personal data, unless absolutely necessary,"<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Kyle |first=Peter |date=2025-08-01 |title=Keeping children safe online: changes to the Online Safety Act explained |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/keeping-children-safe-online-changes-to-the-online-safety-act-explained |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Gov.UK}}</ref> the legislation requires that companies track usage by specific people and provide data and/or remote access to Ofcom on demand ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-100 Section 100]) <ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |date=2025-07-25 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50 |journal=UK Public General Acts |volume=2023 |issue=50}}</ref>
Enforcement of this act is done by the UK's Office of Communications ([[OFCOM]]). The penalty for breaking these rules is the greater of £18 million and 10% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#schedule-13-paragraph-4 Schedule 13.4]).<ref name=":1" />

==Background==
The Online Safety Act is a "Bill to make provision for and in connection with the regulation by [[OFCOM]] of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes."<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2024-08-19 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=UK Parliament: Parliamentary Bills}}</ref>

The Online Safety Act received royal assent on 26 October 2023, following five years of work by [[Carnegie UK]], working in concert with over 50 partners. In 2018, Carnegie UK published a series of blogs by [[William Perrin]] and [[Professor Lorna Woods]], outlining the proposal for social media regulation. The UK Government published its [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper White Paper] on 8 April 2019, tackling online harm, with a duty of care approach at its core. Carnegie UK ended their work on the Online Safety Act in October 2023.<ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk">{{Cite web |last=Davidson |first=Sarah |date=26 October 2023 |title=Online safety and Carnegie UK |url=https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701203854/https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref>

The bill was sponsored by [[Michelle Donelan]], the (now former) Conservative MP for Chippenham and [[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]], a current member of the House of Lords. Both on behalf of the [[UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport]]. <ref name=":4" />

The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages. The original that reached royal assent on 26 October 2023 under [[Rishi Sunak]]'s Conservative government, and the amended version in 2025, under [[Kier Starmer]]'s Labour government. In February 2025, amendments related to making corporations more accountable for the content on their websites, as well as accountability for people accessing inappropriate content were brought to and voted on in parliament. The bill was changed again in May 2025 to include biometric face scans and government ID requirements, which was was not voted on in parliament.

[[Age Verification Providers Association]] (AVPA) was formed in 2018 and is growing rapidly as the age and identity provider industry takes off. It represents all main technology suppliers who have invested in the development of age verification solutions to support the implementation of age restrictions online. <ref>{{Cite web |title=Age Verification Providers Association |url=https://avpassociation.com/}}</ref>

==The impact==
Since the UK Online Safety Act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other, <ref name=":2" /> it has a broad impact across the entire internet for those accessing websites from within the UK. All online services that [[OFCOM]] deems to be within the scope of the Online Safety Act must incorporate an identity verification process to determine each user's age.<ref name=":3" /> This has forced many websites to geo-block the UK because they are too small to justify or afford implementing their own the identity verification process or partnering with a third provider. A list of affected websites is available on [https://OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk]. {{Ph-I-I}}

===Spotify===
To view age-restricted content on [[Spotify]], users in the UK are now asked for facial scanning; if that fails, ID verification can only correct the error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |title=Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content |url=https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |access-date=3 August 2025 |work=404 Media |date=30 July 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250730160610/https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |archive-date=30 July 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===YouTube===
{{Main|Youtubes Requirement for Government ID}}
On July 30, 2025, [[YouTube]] responded by announcing its verification system, requesting users for either a government-issued ID, a photo, or credit card, in order to show that users are 18 and older. Age will be estimated through various information, including videos watched, and would lock users flagged below 18 unless they send one of aforementioned proofs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Michael |date=30 Jul 2025 |title=YouTube is Rolling Out A New Controversial Feature |url=https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |url-status=live |access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=GameRant}}</ref>

===Wikipedia===
The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On August 11, 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
{{Ph-I-ConR}}
United Kingdom saw an increased VPN usage by 1400 percent.<ref name="UK_VPN">{{Cite web |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=July 28, 2025 |title=UK VPN demand soars after debut of Online Safety Act |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/28/uk_vpn_demand_soars/ |access-date=August 15, 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref> As of August 16, 2025, there has been at least 500 thousand signatures petitioning to repeal the act.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Baynham |first=Alex |date=2025-04-22 |title=Repeal the Online Safety Act |url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 |website=Petitions: UK Government and Parliament}}</ref>

===SafetyAct.co.uk===
[https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/ OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk] is operated by Neil Brown<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk |url=https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/contact/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk}}</ref>, a UK tech lawyer ([https://decoded.legal decoded.legal]).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=Neil Brown (@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk) |url=https://mastodon.neilzone.co.uk/@neil |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=mastodon.neilzone.co.uk}}</ref> It lists all of the websites affected by the Online Safety Act, with the help of user submissions.

===Use Their ID===
[https://use-their-id.com/ Use Their ID.com] is a parody site that uses publicly available data about UK members of parliament to create AI-generated mock driving licences. They are clearly marked as satire and users are warned not to use them for anything real. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-28 |title=Use Their ID |url=https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250730001620/https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-date=2025-07-30 |access-date=2025-08-17}}</ref>

==Industry expert response==

===Electronic Frontier Foundation===
The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) posted an article entitled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online], and covers the threat to privacy of internet users and how the bill restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposing users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form ID excluded from accessing the internet.

"The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users—including children—rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collings |first=Paige |date=2025-08-01 |title=No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250812070622/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-date=2025-08-12 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

===Theo Browne, YouTuber & CEO at T3 Chat===
Theo posted a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZozNjPcGw YouTube video] covering the Online Safety Act and how it going to destroy the free internet if internet community don't stop it ASAP. He said it's rare that he gets that extreme about something like this, but it's a really important thing that the community jump in front of. In his opinion, this is the fist time something this potentially damaging has been implemented in decades.

====Data Protection concerns====
The Online Safety Act will normalise providing your government-issued identification in order to see content, making everyone more susceptible and vulnerable to phishing attacks perpetrated by identity thieves.

"The only winners of this shit are VPN companies and identity providers."
[[File:Online Safety Act- Offloading Responsibility. .png|thumb|Parents, government, platforms, identity providers]]

====Offloaded responsibility====
By continuing to shift the responsibility down the pipe, we are increasing the potential harm for when it goes wrong. "Who is harmed if they fail their responsibility?"

=====Parents=====
when parents do a bad job of protecting their kids, the kid sees things that they shouldn't.

=====Governments=====
If the government does a bad job of helping the parents protect their kids, it could destroy the open internet.

=====Platforms=====
If the platform does a bad job of verifying the kids using the rules the government gave them, personal info starts to leak.

=====Third party identity verification providers=====
We've massively increased the opportunity and the like surface area of identity attacks and identity theft in general. We've made the internet less free and we've made it way harder to share information and we gave a ton of money to VPN companies for no reason.

==Government response==
Ofcom discouraged the promotion of VPNs.<ref name="UK_VPN" />

UK Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for debate. On 28 July 2025, when the petition to repeal the act had about 400,000 signatures, the government responded with this message: "The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.", only a few days after coming into force.<ref name=":0" /> This was only after three days (25 July 2025) the "highly effective age assurance" requirement came into force.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Department for Science, Innovation and Technology |date=2025-07-24 |title=Collection: Online Safety Act |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act |website=Gov.UK}}</ref>

The technology minister [[Peter Kyle]] said on Good Morning Britain, "if you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. Not those who want to keep children safe."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-07-29 |title=Peter Kyle Says 'Nigel Farage Is on the Side of Predators' |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-MaeOLISlA |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Good Morning Britain, Youtube}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Legislation in Europe]]

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-17T18:05:24Z

LegislationRepair: /* Background */ Sorry @Elxroid, this doesn't fit in with the living persons policy.

{{StubNotice}}
{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2023-10-26
|Status=Active
|Type=Digital restrictions
|Description=On 26 October 2023, the UK Online Safety Act passed and became law. This act restricts the freedom of UK users of the internet and increases censorship.
|ArticleType=Legislation}}

United Kingdom's [[wikipedia:Online Safety Act 2023|Online Safety Act 2023]] is a set of laws that claims to protect children and adults online.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=April 24, 2025 |title=Online Safety Act: explainer |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer |website=Gov.uk}}</ref> The act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-4 Section 4]).

One of the duties of the act requires affected websites to implement their own solution for identity verification such that it is highly effective to prove one's age ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-12-6 Section 12.6]). There is no official government-sanctioned identity verification platform. Each service provider must implement their own solution or find a third party solution to use to remain compliant.

While the press release says "the measures platforms have to put in place must confirm your age without collecting or storing personal data, unless absolutely necessary,"<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Kyle |first=Peter |date=2025-08-01 |title=Keeping children safe online: changes to the Online Safety Act explained |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/keeping-children-safe-online-changes-to-the-online-safety-act-explained |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Gov.UK}}</ref> the legislation requires that companies track usage by specific people and provide data and/or remote access to Ofcom on demand ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-100 Section 100]) <ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |date=2025-07-25 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50 |journal=UK Public General Acts |volume=2023 |issue=50}}</ref>
Enforcement of this act is done by the UK's Office of Communications ([[OFCOM]]). The penalty for breaking these rules is the greater of £18 million and 10% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#schedule-13-paragraph-4 Schedule 13.4]).<ref name=":1" />

==Background==
The Online Safety Act is a "Bill to make provision for and in connection with the regulation by [[OFCOM]] of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes."<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2024-08-19 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=UK Parliament: Parliamentary Bills}}</ref>

The Online Safety Act received royal assent on 26 October 2023, following five years of work by [[Carnegie UK]], working in concert with over 50 partners. In 2018, Carnegie UK published a series of blogs by [[William Perrin]] and [[Professor Lorna Woods]], outlining the proposal for social media regulation. The UK Government published its [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper White Paper] on 8 April 2019, tackling online harm, with a duty of care approach at its core. Carnegie UK ended their work on the Online Safety Act in October 2023.<ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk">{{Cite web |last=Davidson |first=Sarah |date=26 October 2023 |title=Online safety and Carnegie UK |url=https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701203854/https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref>

The bill was sponsored by [[Michelle Donelan]], the (now former) Conservative MP for Chippenham and [[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]], a current member of the House of Lords. Both on behalf of the [[UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport]]. <ref name=":4" />

The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages. The original that reached royal assent on 26 October 2023 under [[Rishi Sunak]]'s Conservative government, and the amended version in 2025, under [[Kier Starmer]]'s Labour government. In February 2025, amendments related to making corporations more accountable for the content on their websites, as well as accountability for people accessing inappropriate content were brought to and voted on in parliament. The bill was changed again in May 2025 to include biometric face scans and government ID requirements, which was was not voted on in parliament.

[[Age Verification Providers Association]] (AVPA) was formed in 2018 and is growing rapidly as the age and identity provider industry takes off. It represents all main technology suppliers who have invested in the development of age verification solutions to support the implementation of age restrictions online. <ref>{{Cite web |title=Age Verification Providers Association |url=https://avpassociation.com/}}</ref>

==The impact==
Since the UK Online Safety Act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other, <ref name=":2" /> it has a broad impact across the entire internet for those accessing websites from within the UK. All online services that [[OFCOM]] deems to be within the scope of the Online Safety Act must incorporate an identity verification process to determine each user's age.<ref name=":3" /> This has forced many websites to geo-block the UK because they are too small to justify or afford implementing their own the identity verification process or partnering with a third provider. A list of affected websites is available on [https://OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk]. {{Ph-I-I}}

===Spotify===
To view age-restricted content on [[Spotify]], users in the UK are now asked for facial scanning; if that fails, ID verification can only correct the error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |title=Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content |url=https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |access-date=3 August 2025 |work=404 Media |date=30 July 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250730160610/https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |archive-date=30 July 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===YouTube===
{{Main|Youtubes Requirement for Government ID}}
On July 30, 2025, [[YouTube]] responded by announcing its verification system, requesting users for either a government-issued ID, a photo, or credit card, in order to show that users are 18 and older. Age will be estimated through various information, including videos watched, and would lock users flagged below 18 unless they send one of aforementioned proofs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Michael |date=30 Jul 2025 |title=YouTube is Rolling Out A New Controversial Feature |url=https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |url-status=live |access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=GameRant}}</ref>

===Wikipedia===
The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On August 11, 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
{{Ph-I-ConR}}
United Kingdom saw an increased VPN usage by 1400 percent.<ref name="UK_VPN">{{Cite web |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=July 28, 2025 |title=UK VPN demand soars after debut of Online Safety Act |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/28/uk_vpn_demand_soars/ |access-date=August 15, 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref> As of August 16, 2025, there has been at least 500 thousand signatures petitioning to repeal the act.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Baynham |first=Alex |date=2025-04-22 |title=Repeal the Online Safety Act |url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 |website=Petitions: UK Government and Parliament}}</ref>

===SafetyAct.co.uk===
[https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/ OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk] is operated by Neil Brown<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk |url=https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/contact/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk}}</ref>, a UK tech lawyer ([https://decoded.legal decoded.legal]).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=Neil Brown (@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk) |url=https://mastodon.neilzone.co.uk/@neil |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=mastodon.neilzone.co.uk}}</ref> It lists all of the websites affected by the Online Safety Act, with the help of user submissions.

===Use Their ID===
This is a parody site that uses publicly available data about UK members of parliament to create AI-generated mock driving licences. They are clearly marked as satire and users are warned not to use them for anything real. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-28 |title=Use Their ID |url=https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250730001620/https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-date=2025-07-30 |access-date=2025-08-17}}</ref>

==Industry expert response==

===Electronic Frontier Foundation===
The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) posted an article entitled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online], and covers the threat to privacy of internet users and how the bill restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposing users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form ID excluded from accessing the internet.

"The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users—including children—rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collings |first=Paige |date=2025-08-01 |title=No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250812070622/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-date=2025-08-12 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

===Theo Browne, YouTuber & CEO at T3 Chat===
Theo posted a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZozNjPcGw YouTube video] covering the Online Safety Act and how it going to destroy the free internet if internet community don't stop it ASAP. He said it's rare that he gets that extreme about something like this, but it's a really important thing that the community jump in front of. In his opinion, this is the fist time something this potentially damaging has been implemented in decades.

====Data Protection concerns====
The Online Safety Act will normalise providing your government-issued identification in order to see content, making everyone more susceptible and vulnerable to phishing attacks perpetrated by identity thieves.

"The only winners of this shit are VPN companies and identity providers."
[[File:Online Safety Act- Offloading Responsibility. .png|thumb|Parents, government, platforms, identity providers]]

====Offloaded responsibility====
By continuing to shift the responsibility down the pipe, we are increasing the potential harm for when it goes wrong. "Who is harmed if they fail their responsibility?"

=====Parents=====
when parents do a bad job of protecting their kids, the kid sees things that they shouldn't.

=====Governments=====
If the government does a bad job of helping the parents protect their kids, it could destroy the open internet.

=====Platforms=====
If the platform does a bad job of verifying the kids using the rules the government gave them, personal info starts to leak.

=====Third party identity verification providers=====
We've massively increased the opportunity and the like surface area of identity attacks and identity theft in general. We've made the internet less free and we've made it way harder to share information and we gave a ton of money to VPN companies for no reason.

==Government response==
Ofcom discouraged the promotion of VPNs.<ref name="UK_VPN" />

UK Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for debate. On 28 July 2025, when the petition to repeal the act had about 400,000 signatures, the government responded with this message: "The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.", only a few days after coming into force.<ref name=":0" /> This was only after three days (25 July 2025) the "highly effective age assurance" requirement came into force.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Department for Science, Innovation and Technology |date=2025-07-24 |title=Collection: Online Safety Act |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act |website=Gov.UK}}</ref>

The technology minister [[Peter Kyle]] said on Good Morning Britain, "if you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. Not those who want to keep children safe."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-07-29 |title=Peter Kyle Says 'Nigel Farage Is on the Side of Predators' |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-MaeOLISlA |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Good Morning Britain, Youtube}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Legislation in Europe]]

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-17T17:57:57Z

LegislationRepair: /* Background */ add reference to Age Verification Providers Association that represents all main suppliers of age verification

{{StubNotice}}
{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2023-10-26
|Status=Active
|Type=Digital restrictions
|Description=On 26 October 2023, the UK Online Safety Act passed and became law. This act restricts the freedom of UK users of the internet and increases censorship.
|ArticleType=Legislation}}

United Kingdom's [[wikipedia:Online Safety Act 2023|Online Safety Act 2023]] is a set of laws that claims to protect children and adults online.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=April 24, 2025 |title=Online Safety Act: explainer |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer |website=Gov.uk}}</ref> The act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-4 Section 4]).

One of the duties of the act requires affected websites to implement their own solution for identity verification such that it is highly effective to prove one's age ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-12-6 Section 12.6]). There is no official government-sanctioned identity verification platform. Each service provider must implement their own solution or find a third party solution to use to remain compliant.

While the press release says "the measures platforms have to put in place must confirm your age without collecting or storing personal data, unless absolutely necessary,"<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Kyle |first=Peter |date=2025-08-01 |title=Keeping children safe online: changes to the Online Safety Act explained |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/keeping-children-safe-online-changes-to-the-online-safety-act-explained |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Gov.UK}}</ref> the legislation requires that companies track usage by specific people and provide data and/or remote access to Ofcom on demand ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-100 Section 100]) <ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |date=2025-07-25 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50 |journal=UK Public General Acts |volume=2023 |issue=50}}</ref>
Enforcement of this act is done by the UK's Office of Communications ([[OFCOM]]). The penalty for breaking these rules is the greater of £18 million and 10% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#schedule-13-paragraph-4 Schedule 13.4]).<ref name=":1" />

==Background==
The Online Safety Act is a "Bill to make provision for and in connection with the regulation by [[OFCOM]] of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes."<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2024-08-19 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=UK Parliament: Parliamentary Bills}}</ref>

The Online Safety Act received royal assent on 26 October 2023, following five years of work by [[Carnegie UK]], working in concert with over 50 partners. In 2018, Carnegie UK published a series of blogs by [[William Perrin]] and [[Professor Lorna Woods]], outlining the proposal for social media regulation. The UK Government published its [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper White Paper] on 8 April 2019, tackling online harm, with a duty of care approach at its core. Carnegie UK ended their work on the Online Safety Act in October 2023.<ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk">{{Cite web |last=Davidson |first=Sarah |date=26 October 2023 |title=Online safety and Carnegie UK |url=https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701203854/https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref>

[[William Perrin]] has also assisted in creation of [[OFCOM]] <ref>{{Cite web |title=William Perrin - International Institute of Communications |url=https://www.iicom.org/profile/william-perrin/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250817131102/https://www.iicom.org/profile/william-perrin/ |archive-date=2025-08-17 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=iicom.org}}</ref>, the regulator for the Online Safety Act. Due to the Ofcom having to handle the Online Safety Act and [[William Perrin]]'s ties to both Carnegie UK and Ofcom, this would be subject to a conflict of interest investigation however due to Carnegie UK stopping their work with the Online Safety Act <ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk" />, such investigations never took place.

The bill was sponsored by [[Michelle Donelan]], the (now former) Conservative MP for Chippenham and [[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]], a current member of the House of Lords. Both on behalf of the [[UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport]]. <ref name=":4" />

The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages. The original that reached royal assent on 26 October 2023 under [[Rishi Sunak]]'s Conservative government, and the amended version in 2025, under [[Kier Starmer]]'s Labour government. In February 2025, amendments related to making corporations more accountable for the content on their websites, as well as accountability for people accessing inappropriate content were brought to and voted on in parliament. The bill was changed again in May 2025 to include biometric face scans and government ID requirements, which was was not voted on in parliament.

[[Age Verification Providers Association]] (AVPA) was formed in 2018 and is growing rapidly as the age and identity provider industry takes off. It represents all main technology suppliers who have invested in the development of age verification solutions to support the implementation of age restrictions online. <ref>{{Cite web |title=Age Verification Providers Association |url=https://avpassociation.com/}}</ref>

==The impact==
Since the UK Online Safety Act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other, <ref name=":2" /> it has a broad impact across the entire internet for those accessing websites from within the UK. All online services that [[OFCOM]] deems to be within the scope of the Online Safety Act must incorporate an identity verification process to determine each user's age.<ref name=":3" /> This has forced many websites to geo-block the UK because they are too small to justify or afford implementing their own the identity verification process or partnering with a third provider. A list of affected websites is available on [https://OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk]. {{Ph-I-I}}

===Spotify===
To view age-restricted content on [[Spotify]], users in the UK are now asked for facial scanning; if that fails, ID verification can only correct the error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |title=Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content |url=https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |access-date=3 August 2025 |work=404 Media |date=30 July 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250730160610/https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |archive-date=30 July 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===YouTube===
{{Main|Youtubes Requirement for Government ID}}
On July 30, 2025, [[YouTube]] responded by announcing its verification system, requesting users for either a government-issued ID, a photo, or credit card, in order to show that users are 18 and older. Age will be estimated through various information, including videos watched, and would lock users flagged below 18 unless they send one of aforementioned proofs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Michael |date=30 Jul 2025 |title=YouTube is Rolling Out A New Controversial Feature |url=https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |url-status=live |access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=GameRant}}</ref>

===Wikipedia===
The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On August 11, 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
{{Ph-I-ConR}}
United Kingdom saw an increased VPN usage by 1400 percent.<ref name="UK_VPN">{{Cite web |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=July 28, 2025 |title=UK VPN demand soars after debut of Online Safety Act |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/28/uk_vpn_demand_soars/ |access-date=August 15, 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref> As of August 16, 2025, there has been at least 500 thousand signatures petitioning to repeal the act.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Baynham |first=Alex |date=2025-04-22 |title=Repeal the Online Safety Act |url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 |website=Petitions: UK Government and Parliament}}</ref>

===SafetyAct.co.uk===
[https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/ OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk] is operated by Neil Brown<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk |url=https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/contact/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk}}</ref>, a UK tech lawyer ([https://decoded.legal decoded.legal]).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=Neil Brown (@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk) |url=https://mastodon.neilzone.co.uk/@neil |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=mastodon.neilzone.co.uk}}</ref> It lists all of the websites affected by the Online Safety Act, with the help of user submissions.

===Use Their ID===
This is a parody site that uses publicly available data about UK members of parliament to create AI-generated mock driving licences. They are clearly marked as satire and users are warned not to use them for anything real. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-28 |title=Use Their ID |url=https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250730001620/https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-date=2025-07-30 |access-date=2025-08-17}}</ref>

==Industry expert response==

===Electronic Frontier Foundation===
The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) posted an article entitled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online], and covers the threat to privacy of internet users and how the bill restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposing users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form ID excluded from accessing the internet.

"The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users—including children—rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collings |first=Paige |date=2025-08-01 |title=No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250812070622/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-date=2025-08-12 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

===Theo Browne, YouTuber & CEO at T3 Chat===
Theo posted a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZozNjPcGw YouTube video] covering the Online Safety Act and how it going to destroy the free internet if internet community don't stop it ASAP. He said it's rare that he gets that extreme about something like this, but it's a really important thing that the community jump in front of. In his opinion, this is the fist time something this potentially damaging has been implemented in decades.

====Data Protection concerns====
The Online Safety Act will normalise providing your government-issued identification in order to see content, making everyone more susceptible and vulnerable to phishing attacks perpetrated by identity thieves.

"The only winners of this shit are VPN companies and identity providers."
[[File:Online Safety Act- Offloading Responsibility. .png|thumb|Parents, government, platforms, identity providers]]

====Offloaded responsibility====
By continuing to shift the responsibility down the pipe, we are increasing the potential harm for when it goes wrong. "Who is harmed if they fail their responsibility?"

=====Parents=====
when parents do a bad job of protecting their kids, the kid sees things that they shouldn't.

=====Governments=====
If the government does a bad job of helping the parents protect their kids, it could destroy the open internet.

=====Platforms=====
If the platform does a bad job of verifying the kids using the rules the government gave them, personal info starts to leak.

=====Third party identity verification providers=====
We've massively increased the opportunity and the like surface area of identity attacks and identity theft in general. We've made the internet less free and we've made it way harder to share information and we gave a ton of money to VPN companies for no reason.

==Government response==
Ofcom discouraged the promotion of VPNs.<ref name="UK_VPN" />

UK Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for debate. On 28 July 2025, when the petition to repeal the act had about 400,000 signatures, the government responded with this message: "The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.", only a few days after coming into force.<ref name=":0" /> This was only after three days (25 July 2025) the "highly effective age assurance" requirement came into force.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Department for Science, Innovation and Technology |date=2025-07-24 |title=Collection: Online Safety Act |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act |website=Gov.UK}}</ref>

The technology minister [[Peter Kyle]] said on Good Morning Britain, "if you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. Not those who want to keep children safe."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-07-29 |title=Peter Kyle Says 'Nigel Farage Is on the Side of Predators' |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-MaeOLISlA |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Good Morning Britain, Youtube}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Legislation in Europe]]

Talk:UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-17T17:31:02Z

LegislationRepair: /* The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages. */ new section

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-17T17:17:46Z

LegislationRepair: /* Consumer response */ added reference to Use-Their-ID.com

{{StubNotice}}
{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2023-10-26
|Status=Active
|Type=Digital restrictions
|Description=On 26 October 2023, the UK Online Safety Act passed and became law. This act restricts the freedom of UK users of the internet and increases censorship.
|ArticleType=Legislation}}

United Kingdom's [[wikipedia:Online Safety Act 2023|Online Safety Act 2023]] is a set of laws that claims to protect children and adults online.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=April 24, 2025 |title=Online Safety Act: explainer |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer |website=Gov.uk}}</ref> The act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-4 Section 4]).

One of the duties of the act requires affected websites to implement their own solution for identity verification such that it is highly effective to prove one's age ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-12-6 Section 12.6]). There is no official government-sanctioned identity verification platform. Each service provider must implement their own solution or find a third party solution to use to remain compliant.

While the press release says "the measures platforms have to put in place must confirm your age without collecting or storing personal data, unless absolutely necessary,"<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Kyle |first=Peter |date=2025-08-01 |title=Keeping children safe online: changes to the Online Safety Act explained |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/keeping-children-safe-online-changes-to-the-online-safety-act-explained |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Gov.UK}}</ref> the legislation requires that companies track usage by specific people and provide data and/or remote access to Ofcom on demand ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-100 Section 100]) <ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |date=2025-07-25 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50 |journal=UK Public General Acts |volume=2023 |issue=50}}</ref>
Enforcement of this act is done by the UK's Office of Communications ([[OFCOM]]). The penalty for breaking these rules is the greater of £18 million and 10% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#schedule-13-paragraph-4 Schedule 13.4]).<ref name=":1" />

==Background==
The Online Safety Act is a "Bill to make provision for and in connection with the regulation by [[OFCOM]] of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes."<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2024-08-19 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=UK Parliament: Parliamentary Bills}}</ref>

The Online Safety Act received royal assent on 26 October 2023, following five years of work by [[Carnegie UK]], working in concert with over 50 partners. In 2018, Carnegie UK published a series of blogs by [[William Perrin]] and [[Professor Lorna Woods]], outlining the proposal for social media regulation. The UK Government published its [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper White Paper] on 8 April 2019, tackling online harm, with a duty of care approach at its core. Carnegie UK ended their work on the Online Safety Act in October 2023.<ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk">{{Cite web |last=Davidson |first=Sarah |date=26 October 2023 |title=Online safety and Carnegie UK |url=https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701203854/https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref>

The bill was sponsored by [[Michelle Donelan]], the (now former) Conservative MP for Chippenham and [[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]], a current member of the House of Lords. Both on behalf of the [[UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport]]. <ref name=":4" />

The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages. The original that reached royal assent on 26 October 2023 under [[Rishi Sunak]]'s Conservative government, and the amended version in 2025, under [[Kier Starmer]]'s Labour government. In February 2025, amendments related to making corporations more accountable for the content on their websites, as well as accountability for people accessing inappropriate content were brought to and voted on in parliament. The bill was changed again in May 2025 to include biometric face scans and government ID requirements, which was was not voted on in parliament.

[[OFCOM]], the UK's Office of Communications, is the regulator for the Online Safety Act. {{Ph-I-B}}

[[William Perrin]] has also assisted in creation of [[OFCOM]] <ref>{{Cite web |title=William Perrin - International Institute of Communications |url=https://www.iicom.org/profile/william-perrin/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250817131102/https://www.iicom.org/profile/william-perrin/ |archive-date=2025-08-17 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=iicom.org}}</ref>. Due to the Ofcom having to handle the Online Safey Act and [[William Perrin]]'s ties to both Carnegie UK and Ofcom, this would be subject to a conflict of interest investigation however due to Carnegie UK stopping their work with the Online Safey Act <ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk" />, such investigations never took place.

==The impact==
Since the UK Online Safety Act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other, <ref name=":2" /> it has a broad impact across the entire internet for those accessing websites from within the UK. All online services that [[OFCOM]] deems to be within the scope of the Online Safety Act must incorporate an identity verification process to determine each user's age.<ref name=":3" /> This has forced many websites to geo-block the UK because they are too small to justify or afford implementing their own the identity verification process or partnering with a third provider. A list of affected websites is available on [https://OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk]. {{Ph-I-I}}

===Spotify===
To view age-restricted content on [[Spotify]], users in the UK are now asked for facial scanning; if that fails, ID verification can only correct the error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |title=Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content |url=https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |access-date=3 August 2025 |work=404 Media |date=30 July 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250730160610/https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |archive-date=30 July 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===YouTube===
{{Main|Youtubes Requirement for Government ID}}
On July 30, 2025, [[YouTube]] responded by announcing its verification system, requesting users for either a government-issued ID, a photo, or credit card, in order to show that users are 18 and older. Age will be estimated through various information, including videos watched, and would lock users flagged below 18 unless they send one of aforementioned proofs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Michael |date=30 Jul 2025 |title=YouTube is Rolling Out A New Controversial Feature |url=https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |url-status=live |access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=GameRant}}</ref>

===Wikipedia===
The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On August 11, 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
{{Ph-I-ConR}}
United Kingdom saw an increased VPN usage by 1400 percent.<ref name="UK_VPN">{{Cite web |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=July 28, 2025 |title=UK VPN demand soars after debut of Online Safety Act |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/28/uk_vpn_demand_soars/ |access-date=August 15, 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref> As of August 16, 2025, there has been at least 500 thousand signatures petitioning to repeal the act.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Baynham |first=Alex |date=2025-04-22 |title=Repeal the Online Safety Act |url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 |website=Petitions: UK Government and Parliament}}</ref>

===SafetyAct.co.uk===
[https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/ OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk] is operated by Neil Brown<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk |url=https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/contact/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk}}</ref>, a UK tech lawyer ([https://decoded.legal decoded.legal]).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=Neil Brown (@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk) |url=https://mastodon.neilzone.co.uk/@neil |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=mastodon.neilzone.co.uk}}</ref> It lists all of the websites affected by the Online Safety Act, with the help of user submissions.

=== Use Their ID ===
This is a parody site that uses publicly available data about UK members of parliament to create AI-generated mock driving licences. They are clearly marked as satire and users are warned not to use them for anything real. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-28 |title=Use Their ID |url=https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250730001620/https://use-their-id.com/ |archive-date=2025-07-30 |access-date=2025-08-17}}</ref>

==Industry expert response==

===Electronic Frontier Foundation===
The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) posted an article entitled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online], and covers the threat to privacy of internet users and how the bill restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposing users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form ID excluded from accessing the internet.

"The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users—including children—rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collings |first=Paige |date=2025-08-01 |title=No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250812070622/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-date=2025-08-12 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

===Theo Browne, YouTuber & CEO at T3 Chat===
Theo posted a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZozNjPcGw YouTube video] covering the Online Safety Act and how it going to destroy the free internet if internet community don't stop it ASAP. He said it's rare that he gets that extreme about something like this, but it's a really important thing that the community jump in front of. In his opinion, this is the fist time something this potentially damaging has been implemented in decades.

====Data Protection concerns====
The Online Safety Act will normalise providing your government-issued identification in order to see content, making everyone more susceptible and vulnerable to phishing attacks perpetrated by identity thieves.

"The only winners of this shit are VPN companies and identity providers."
[[File:Online Safety Act- Offloading Responsibility. .png|thumb|Parents, government, platforms, identity providers]]

====Offloaded responsibility====
By continuing to shift the responsibility down the pipe, we are increasing the potential harm for when it goes wrong. "Who is harmed if they fail their responsibility?"

=====Parents=====
when parents do a bad job of protecting their kids, the kid sees things that they shouldn't.

=====Governments=====
If the government does a bad job of helping the parents protect their kids, it could destroy the open internet.

=====Platforms=====
If the platform does a bad job of verifying the kids using the rules the government gave them, personal info starts to leak.

=====Third party identity verification providers=====
We've massively increased the opportunity and the like surface area of identity attacks and identity theft in general. We've made the internet less free and we've made it way harder to share information and we gave a ton of money to VPN companies for no reason.

==Government response==
Ofcom discouraged the promotion of VPNs.<ref name="UK_VPN" />

UK Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for debate. On 28 July 2025, when the petition to repeal the act had about 400,000 signatures, the government responded with this message: "The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.", only a few days after coming into force.<ref name=":0" /> This was only after three days (25 July 2025) the "highly effective age assurance" requirement came into force.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Department for Science, Innovation and Technology |date=2025-07-24 |title=Collection: Online Safety Act |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act |website=Gov.UK}}</ref>

The technology minister [[Peter Kyle]] said on Good Morning Britain, "if you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. Not those who want to keep children safe."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-07-29 |title=Peter Kyle Says 'Nigel Farage Is on the Side of Predators' |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-MaeOLISlA |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Good Morning Britain, Youtube}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Legislation in Europe]]

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-17T17:05:31Z

LegislationRepair: /* Industry expert response */ more summary details from Theo Browne's response, specific to consumer protection.

{{StubNotice}}
{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2023-10-26
|Status=Active
|Type=Digital restrictions
|Description=On 26 October 2023, the UK Online Safety Act passed and became law. This act restricts the freedom of UK users of the internet and increases censorship.
|ArticleType=Legislation}}

United Kingdom's [[wikipedia:Online Safety Act 2023|Online Safety Act 2023]] is a set of laws that claims to protect children and adults online.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=April 24, 2025 |title=Online Safety Act: explainer |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer |website=Gov.uk}}</ref> The act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-4 Section 4]).

One of the duties of the act requires affected websites to implement their own solution for identity verification such that it is highly effective to prove one's age ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-12-6 Section 12.6]). There is no official government-sanctioned identity verification platform. Each service provider must implement their own solution or find a third party solution to use to remain compliant.

While the press release says "the measures platforms have to put in place must confirm your age without collecting or storing personal data, unless absolutely necessary,"<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Kyle |first=Peter |date=2025-08-01 |title=Keeping children safe online: changes to the Online Safety Act explained |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/keeping-children-safe-online-changes-to-the-online-safety-act-explained |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Gov.UK}}</ref> the legislation requires that companies track usage by specific people and provide data and/or remote access to Ofcom on demand ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-100 Section 100]) <ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |date=2025-07-25 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50 |journal=UK Public General Acts |volume=2023 |issue=50}}</ref>
Enforcement of this act is done by the UK's Office of Communications ([[OFCOM]]). The penalty for breaking these rules is the greater of £18 million and 10% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#schedule-13-paragraph-4 Schedule 13.4]).<ref name=":1" />

==Background==
The Online Safety Act is a "Bill to make provision for and in connection with the regulation by [[OFCOM]] of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes."<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2024-08-19 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=UK Parliament: Parliamentary Bills}}</ref>

The Online Safety Act received royal assent on 26 October 2023, following five years of work by [[Carnegie UK]], working in concert with over 50 partners. In 2018, Carnegie UK published a series of blogs by [[William Perrin]] and [[Professor Lorna Woods]], outlining the proposal for social media regulation. The UK Government published its [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper White Paper] on 8 April 2019, tackling online harm, with a duty of care approach at its core. Carnegie UK ended their work on the Online Safety Act in October 2023.<ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk">{{Cite web |last=Davidson |first=Sarah |date=26 October 2023 |title=Online safety and Carnegie UK |url=https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701203854/https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref>

The bill was sponsored by [[Michelle Donelan]], the (now former) Conservative MP for Chippenham and [[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]], a current member of the House of Lords. Both on behalf of the [[UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport]]. <ref name=":4" />

The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages. The original that reached royal assent on 26 October 2023 under [[Rishi Sunak]]'s Conservative government, and the amended version in 2025, under [[Kier Starmer]]'s Labour government. In February 2025, amendments related to making corporations more accountable for the content on their websites, as well as accountability for people accessing inappropriate content were brought to and voted on in parliament. The bill was changed again in May 2025 to include biometric face scans and government ID requirements, which was was not voted on in parliament.

[[OFCOM]], the UK's Office of Communications, is the regulator for the Online Safety Act. {{Ph-I-B}}

[[William Perrin]] has also assisted in creation of [[OFCOM]] <ref>{{Cite web |title=William Perrin - International Institute of Communications |url=https://www.iicom.org/profile/william-perrin/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250817131102/https://www.iicom.org/profile/william-perrin/ |archive-date=2025-08-17 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=iicom.org}}</ref>. Due to the Ofcom having to handle the Online Safey Act and [[William Perrin]]'s ties to both Carnegie UK and Ofcom, this would be subject to a conflict of interest investigation however due to Carnegie UK stopping their work with the Online Safey Act <ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk" />, such investigations never took place.

==The impact==
Since the UK Online Safety Act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other, <ref name=":2" /> it has a broad impact across the entire internet for those accessing websites from within the UK. All online services that [[OFCOM]] deems to be within the scope of the Online Safety Act must incorporate an identity verification process to determine each user's age.<ref name=":3" /> This has forced many websites to geo-block the UK because they are too small to justify or afford implementing their own the identity verification process or partnering with a third provider. A list of affected websites is available on [https://OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk]. {{Ph-I-I}}

===Spotify===
To view age-restricted content on [[Spotify]], users in the UK are now asked for facial scanning; if that fails, ID verification can only correct the error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |title=Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content |url=https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |access-date=3 August 2025 |work=404 Media |date=30 July 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250730160610/https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |archive-date=30 July 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===YouTube===
{{Main|Youtubes Requirement for Government ID}}
On July 30, 2025, [[YouTube]] responded by announcing its verification system, requesting users for either a government-issued ID, a photo, or credit card, in order to show that users are 18 and older. Age will be estimated through various information, including videos watched, and would lock users flagged below 18 unless they send one of aforementioned proofs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Michael |date=30 Jul 2025 |title=YouTube is Rolling Out A New Controversial Feature |url=https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |url-status=live |access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=GameRant}}</ref>

===Wikipedia===
The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On August 11, 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
{{Ph-I-ConR}}
United Kingdom saw an increased VPN usage by 1400 percent.<ref name="UK_VPN">{{Cite web |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=July 28, 2025 |title=UK VPN demand soars after debut of Online Safety Act |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/28/uk_vpn_demand_soars/ |access-date=August 15, 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref> As of August 16, 2025, there has been at least 500 thousand signatures petitioning to repeal the act.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Baynham |first=Alex |date=2025-04-22 |title=Repeal the Online Safety Act |url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 |website=Petitions: UK Government and Parliament}}</ref>

===SafetyAct.co.uk===
[https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/ OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk] is operated by Neil Brown<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk |url=https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/contact/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk}}</ref>, a UK tech lawyer ([https://decoded.legal decoded.legal]).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=Neil Brown (@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk) |url=https://mastodon.neilzone.co.uk/@neil |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=mastodon.neilzone.co.uk}}</ref> It lists all of the websites affected by the Online Safety Act, with the help of user submissions.

==Industry expert response==

===Electronic Frontier Foundation===
The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) posted an article entitled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online], and covers the threat to privacy of internet users and how the bill restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposing users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form ID excluded from accessing the internet.

"The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users—including children—rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collings |first=Paige |date=2025-08-01 |title=No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250812070622/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-date=2025-08-12 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

===Theo Browne, YouTuber & CEO at T3 Chat===
Theo posted a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZozNjPcGw YouTube video] covering the Online Safety Act and how it going to destroy the free internet if internet community don't stop it ASAP. He said it's rare that he gets that extreme about something like this, but it's a really important thing that the community jump in front of. In his opinion, this is the fist time something this potentially damaging has been implemented in decades.

==== Data Protection concerns ====
The Online Safety Act will normalise providing your government-issued identification in order to see content, making everyone more susceptible and vulnerable to phishing attacks perpetrated by identity thieves.

"The only winners of this shit are VPN companies and identity providers."
[[File:Online Safety Act- Offloading Responsibility. .png|thumb|Parents, government, platforms, identity providers]]

==== Offloaded responsibility ====
By continuing to shift the responsibility down the pipe, we are increasing the potential harm for when it goes wrong. "Who is harmed if they fail their responsibility?"

===== Parents =====
when parents do a bad job of protecting their kids, the kid sees things that they shouldn't.

===== Governments =====
If the government does a bad job of helping the parents protect their kids, it could destroy the open internet.

===== Platforms =====
If the platform does a bad job of verifying the kids using the rules the government gave them, personal info starts to leak.

===== Third party identity verification providers =====
We've massively increased the opportunity and the like surface area of identity attacks and identity theft in general. We've made the internet less free and we've made it way harder to share information and we gave a ton of money to VPN companies for no reason.

==Government response==
Ofcom discouraged the promotion of VPNs.<ref name="UK_VPN" />

UK Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for debate. On 28 July 2025, when the petition to repeal the act had about 400,000 signatures, the government responded with this message: "The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.", only a few days after coming into force.<ref name=":0" /> This was only after three days (25 July 2025) the "highly effective age assurance" requirement came into force.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Department for Science, Innovation and Technology |date=2025-07-24 |title=Collection: Online Safety Act |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act |website=Gov.UK}}</ref>

The technology minister [[Peter Kyle]] said on Good Morning Britain, "if you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. Not those who want to keep children safe."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-07-29 |title=Peter Kyle Says 'Nigel Farage Is on the Side of Predators' |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-MaeOLISlA |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Good Morning Britain, Youtube}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Legislation in Europe]]

File:Online Safety Act- Offloading Responsibility. .png

2025-08-17T17:01:33Z

LegislationRepair:

A visualisation of layers of responsibility to protecting children online, drawn by Theo Browne on his video covering the topic.

Talk:UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-17T16:32:29Z

LegislationRepair: /* The Online Safety Act is a Conspiracy */ new section

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-17T16:10:18Z

LegislationRepair: /* industry expert response */ add new section. add comments from Theo Browne and the EFF.

{{StubNotice}}
{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2023-10-26
|Status=Active
|Type=Digital restrictions
|Description=On 26 October 2023, the UK Online Safety Act passed and became law. This act restricts the freedom of UK users of the internet and increases censorship.
|ArticleType=Legislation}}

United Kingdom's [[wikipedia:Online Safety Act 2023|Online Safety Act 2023]] is a set of laws that claims to protect children and adults online.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=April 24, 2025 |title=Online Safety Act: explainer |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer |website=Gov.uk}}</ref> The act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-4 Section 4]).

One of the duties of the act requires affected websites to implement their own solution for identity verification such that it is highly effective to prove one's age ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-12-6 Section 12.6]). There is no official government-sanctioned identity verification platform. Each service provider must implement their own solution or find a third party solution to use to remain compliant.

While the press release says "the measures platforms have to put in place must confirm your age without collecting or storing personal data, unless absolutely necessary,"<ref name=":3">{{Cite news |last=Kyle |first=Peter |date=2025-08-01 |title=Keeping children safe online: changes to the Online Safety Act explained |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/keeping-children-safe-online-changes-to-the-online-safety-act-explained |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Gov.UK}}</ref> the legislation requires that companies track usage by specific people and provide data and/or remote access to Ofcom on demand ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-100 Section 100]) <ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |date=2025-07-25 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50 |journal=UK Public General Acts |volume=2023 |issue=50}}</ref>
Enforcement of this act is done by the UK's Office of Communications ([[OFCOM]]). The penalty for breaking these rules is the greater of £18 million and 10% of the person’s qualifying worldwide revenue ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#schedule-13-paragraph-4 Schedule 13.4]).<ref name=":1" />

==Background==
The Online Safety Act is a "Bill to make provision for and in connection with the regulation by [[OFCOM]] of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes."<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=2024-08-19 |title=Online Safety Act 2023 |url=https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=UK Parliament: Parliamentary Bills}}</ref>

The Online Safety Act received royal assent on 26 October 2023, following five years of work by [[Carnegie UK]], working in concert with over 50 partners. In 2018, Carnegie UK published a series of blogs by [[William Perrin]] and [[Professor Lorna Woods]], outlining the proposal for social media regulation. The UK Government published its [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper White Paper] on 8 April 2019, tackling online harm, with a duty of care approach at its core. Carnegie UK ended their work on the Online Safety Act in October 2023.<ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk">{{Cite web |last=Davidson |first=Sarah |date=26 October 2023 |title=Online safety and Carnegie UK |url=https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250701203854/https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/ |archive-date=2025-07-01 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Carnegie UK}}</ref>

The bill was sponsored by [[Michelle Donelan]], the (now former) Conservative MP for Chippenham and [[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]], a current member of the House of Lords. Both on behalf of the [[UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport]]. <ref name=":4" />

The Online Safety Act is one act in two different stages. The original that reached royal assent on 26 October 2023 under [[Rishi Sunak]]'s Conservative government, and the amended version in 2025, under [[Kier Starmer]]'s Labour government. In February 2025, amendments related to making corporations more accountable for the content on their websites, as well as accountability for people accessing inappropriate content were brought to and voted on in parliament. The bill was changed again in May 2025 to include biometric face scans and government ID requirements, which was was not voted on in parliament.

[[OFCOM]], the UK's Office of Communications, is the regulator for the Online Safety Act. {{Ph-I-B}}

[[William Perrin]] has also assisted in creation of [[OFCOM]] <ref>{{Cite web |title=William Perrin - International Institute of Communications |url=https://www.iicom.org/profile/william-perrin/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250817131102/https://www.iicom.org/profile/william-perrin/ |archive-date=2025-08-17 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=iicom.org}}</ref>. Due to the Ofcom having to handle the Online Safey Act and [[William Perrin]]'s ties to both Carnegie UK and Ofcom, this would be subject to a conflict of interest investigation however due to Carnegie UK stopping their work with the Online Safey Act <ref name="online-safety-and-carnegie-uk" />, such investigations never took place.

==The impact==
Since the UK Online Safety Act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other, <ref name=":2" /> it has a broad impact across the entire internet for those accessing websites from within the UK. All online services that [[OFCOM]] deems to be within the scope of the Online Safety Act must incorporate an identity verification process to determine each user's age.<ref name=":3" /> This has forced many websites to geo-block the UK because they are too small to justify or afford implementing their own the identity verification process or partnering with a third provider. A list of affected websites is available on [https://OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk]. {{Ph-I-I}}

===Spotify===
To view age-restricted content on [[Spotify]], users in the UK are now asked for facial scanning; if that fails, ID verification can only correct the error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |title=Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content |url=https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |access-date=3 August 2025 |work=404 Media |date=30 July 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250730160610/https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |archive-date=30 July 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===YouTube===
{{Main|Youtubes Requirement for Government ID}}
On July 30, 2025, [[YouTube]] responded by announcing its verification system, requesting users for either a government-issued ID, a photo, or credit card, in order to show that users are 18 and older. Age will be estimated through various information, including videos watched, and would lock users flagged below 18 unless they send one of aforementioned proofs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Michael |date=30 Jul 2025 |title=YouTube is Rolling Out A New Controversial Feature |url=https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |url-status=live |access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=GameRant}}</ref>

===Wikipedia===
The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On August 11, 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
{{Ph-I-ConR}}
United Kingdom saw an increased VPN usage by 1400 percent.<ref name="UK_VPN">{{Cite web |last=Speed |first=Richard |date=July 28, 2025 |title=UK VPN demand soars after debut of Online Safety Act |url=https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/28/uk_vpn_demand_soars/ |access-date=August 15, 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref> As of August 16, 2025, there has been at least 500 thousand signatures petitioning to repeal the act.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Baynham |first=Alex |date=2025-04-22 |title=Repeal the Online Safety Act |url=https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 |website=Petitions: UK Government and Parliament}}</ref>

===SafetyAct.co.uk===
[https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/ OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk] is operated by Neil Brown<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk |url=https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/contact/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk}}</ref>, a UK tech lawyer ([https://decoded.legal decoded.legal]).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Neil |title=Neil Brown (@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk) |url=https://mastodon.neilzone.co.uk/@neil |access-date=2025-08-16 |website=mastodon.neilzone.co.uk}}</ref> It lists all of the websites affected by the Online Safety Act, with the help of user submissions.

== Industry expert response ==

=== Theo Browne, YouTuber & CEO at T3 Chat ===
Theo posted a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TZozNjPcGw YouTube video] covering the Online Safety Act and how it going to destroy the free internet if internet community don't stop it ASAP. He said it's rare that he gets that extreme about something like this, but it's a really important thing that the community jump in front of. In his opinion, this is the fist time something this potentially damaging has been implemented in decades.

=== Electronic Frontier Foundation ===
The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) posted an article entitled [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online], and covers the threat to privacy of internet users and how the bill restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposing users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form ID excluded from accessing the internet.

"The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users—including children—rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collings |first=Paige |date=2025-08-01 |title=No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250812070622/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-act-doesnt-make-children-safer-online |archive-date=2025-08-12 |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

==Government response==
Ofcom discouraged the promotion of VPNs.<ref name="UK_VPN" />

UK Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for debate. On 28 July 2025, when the petition to repeal the act had about 400,000 signatures, the government responded with this message: "The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.", only a few days after coming into force.<ref name=":0" /> This was only after three days (25 July 2025) the "highly effective age assurance" requirement came into force.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Department for Science, Innovation and Technology |date=2025-07-24 |title=Collection: Online Safety Act |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act |website=Gov.UK}}</ref>

The technology minister [[Peter Kyle]] said on Good Morning Britain, "if you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. Not those who want to keep children safe."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-07-29 |title=Peter Kyle Says 'Nigel Farage Is on the Side of Predators' |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-MaeOLISlA |access-date=2025-08-16 |work=Good Morning Britain, Youtube}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Legislation in Europe]]

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-17T12:56:49Z

LegislationRepair: /* Background */ More background details. Still work in progress.

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-17T11:41:22Z

LegislationRepair: /* Websites affected */ work in progress. Changed "Websites affected" to "The Impact"

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-16T23:42:11Z

LegislationRepair: Moved OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk to Consumer Response

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-16T23:40:43Z

LegislationRepair: Moved the <references /> tag out of the top section. Preview indicates that this resolves the incorrect placement.

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-16T22:23:10Z

LegislationRepair:

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-16T22:07:11Z

LegislationRepair: More details to government response.

UK Online Safety Act

2025-08-16T12:25:23Z

LegislationRepair: Adding government response to UK petition to repeal