A couple of weeks back we wrote about the Digital Markets Act and its impact on advertising revenue and how that might affect the digital landscape.
Today we’re looking at the Online Safety Act which came into force this week in the UK. Internet users are likely to be more familiar at least with parts of the Online Safety Act because it has had an impact on our rights to browse adult content in private.
Now you have to register and verify your identity and enjoy the fact that the content providers can assign your particular nuances to a cohort, presumably to help you access more content which may be of interest.
That has a future hacking scandal written all over it. 😱
Whilst the supporters of the OSA cite its aims to enhance online safety, particularly for children by imposing new obligations on digital platforms, its detractors note that its scope does not come without some valid concerns for free speech.
Let’s look at aims of the Online Safety Act
- Duty of Care: Online digital platforms must prevent the sharing of illegal content such as terrorism related material, child abuse and hate speech
- Protection for children: Platforms are now required to prevent children from accessing harmful or age inappropriate content.
- Age verification: Hosting adult content on your site now means that you have to ensure users are 18 or over
Duty of care
No one can argue that preventing terrorism related content or child abuse is anything other than a long over due and an absolute nessecity. The only point I’d have to raise here is that this content is often shared on platforms like Whatsapp – where they state that ‘your messages are encrypted and not even we can read them’.
Ofcom states that the platform must take reasonable steps to detect content – but it won’t say how. You can’t have privacy and big brother.
Whatsapp and others have said that they will leave the UK before they break end to end encryption – but clearly the pressure is on.
Imagine a future where your private messages are scanned for content that the government doesn’t like? – which brings us nicely to ‘Harmful content’
Harmful content
It doesn’t actually just state children. It’s also to protect Adults from ‘Harmful content’
The act covers Hate Speech online which relates to words which insult, abuse, threaten or intend to stir up hatred to groups with Protected Characteristics. The recognised characteristics are : Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Disability, Age and Transgender Identity
However Harmful’ content is not the same as ‘Hate speech’
Content which can now see your account closed down is:
‘Legal, but harmful’, so this is not hate speech, but could lead to psychological harm which is entirely subjective.
Harmful content is any content which offends or insults and this content can be reported to the digital services providers and they will shut your account down. Make no mistake that the service providers will be unlikely to respond to individuals or perform manual reviews on behalf of users and it’s also worth noting that the accounts which are closed and content that is removed will be done on an algorithmic basis – no human judgement or intervention needed. Given the huge fines the digital services providers face, coupled with the potential for individual criminal charges, it would be reasonable to assume these algorithms are on a hair pin trigger. Trigger being an apt word.
Adult content sites
Sites which contain adult themed content – and we’re not just talking about the obvious here, but any sites which contain themes which are deemed adult – such as alcohol, can still, for now, be accessed by a VPN such as NordVPN without verifying your profile. However it’s been reported on the news today that certain individuals in the Labour party are calling for VPNs to be banned – bringing us in line with other democratic countries which have the same policy such as: North Korea, Turkmenistan and Belarus. Did I say democratic?
Giving 16 year olds the vote and simultaneously removing their access to a vast swath of the internet content.
This one may need no further narrative, however it’s also worth noting that 16 year olds are aware of VPNs and how to use one.
How is it enforced?
Some eagle-eye users on social media may have spotted the first grassing buttons appear!
There is a new telltale button on instagram which allows the user to report a comment.
While the function has always been available in the app to report content and comments, this new button specifically captures feedback based on the Online Safety Act and presumably the hairpin algorithmic trigger lurks behind it.
Summary
I know this is an opinion piece very much not in favour of this legislation, but I think measures which drive people offline, underground, using VPNs to avoid having to hand over your passport is an insidious place to be. No one in their right mind believes that children should be able to access harmful content or sites promoting suicide, but surely we should tackle this kind of harmful content at source and shut these sites down?
In the name of safety, the Online Safety Act invites a regime of surveillance, censorship, and digital gatekeeping that no free society should casually accept. Its broad definitions, vague thresholds of harm, and powers handed to unelected regulators risk chilling legitimate speech while doing little to stop those truly intent on harm.
What began as a promise to protect has drifted into a blueprint for control. We should not welcome this legislation, not because we are indifferent to safety, but because we value freedom, transparency, and the right to question authority without being silenced by it.
It’s a big BFBC no to this one. Happy browsing in private
