Online Safety Act 2023

Online Safety Act 2023
Act of Parliament
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long titleAn Act 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.
Citation2023 c. 50
Introduced byMichelle Donelan, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Commons)
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Arts and Heritage (Lords)
Territorial extent United Kingdom (most parts)
Great Britain (certain parts)
Dates
Royal assent26 October 2023
CommencementOn royal assent and by regulations.
Status: Current legislation
History of passage through Parliament
Text of statute as originally enacted
Text of the Online Safety Act 2023 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.

The Online Safety Act 2023[1][2][3] (c. 50) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to regulate online content. It was passed on 26 October 2023 and gives the relevant Secretary of State the power to designate, suppress, and record a wide range of online content that the United Kingdom deems illegal or harmful to children.[4][5]

The Act creates a new duty of care for online platforms, requiring them to take action against illegal content, or legal content that could be harmful to children where children are likely to access it. Platforms failing this duty would be liable to fines of up to £18 million or 10% of their annual turnover, whichever is higher. It also empowers Ofcom to block access to particular websites. However, it obliges large social media platforms not to remove, and to preserve access to, journalistic or "democratically important" content such as user comments on political parties and issues.

The Act also requires platforms, including end-to-end encrypted messengers, to scan for child pornography, which experts say is not possible to implement without undermining users' privacy.[6] The government has said it does not intend to enforce this provision of the Act until it becomes "technically feasible" to do so.[7] The Act also obliges technology platforms to introduce systems that will allow users to better filter out the harmful content they do not want to see.[8][9]

The legislation has drawn criticism both within the UK and overseas from politicians, academics, journalists and human rights organisations, who say that it poses a threat to the right to privacy and freedom of speech and expression.[10][11][12] Supporters of the Act say it is necessary for child protection.[13] The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK have said they will not implement age verification or identity checks, and in 2023 requested that lawmakers exempt public interest platforms from the Act's scope.[14][15] In August 2025, the Wikimedia Foundation lost a challenge to aspects of the Act in the High Court.[16]

Provisions

Scope

Within the scope of the Act is any "user-to-user service". This is defined as an Internet service by means of which content that is generated by a user of the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service by a user of the service, may be read, viewed, heard or otherwise experienced ("encountered") by another user, or other users. Content includes written material or messages, oral communications, photographs, videos, visual images, music and data of any description.[17]

The duty of care applies globally to services with a significant number of United Kingdom users, or which target UK users, or those which are capable of being used in the United Kingdom where there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a material risk of significant harm.[17] The idea of a duty of care for Internet intermediaries was first proposed in Thompson (2016)[18] and made popular in the UK by the work of Woods and Perrin (2019).[19]

Duties

The duty of care in the Act refers to a number of specific duties to all services within scope:[17]

  • The illegal content risk assessment duty
  • The illegal content duties
  • The duty about rights to freedom of expression and privacy
  • The duties about reporting and redress
  • The record-keeping and review duties

For services "likely to be accessed by children", adopting the same scope as the Age Appropriate Design Code, two additional duties are imposed:[17]

  • The children's risk assessment duties
  • The duties to protect children's online safety

For "category 1" services, which will be defined in secondary legislation but are limited to the largest global platforms, there are four further new duties:[17]

  • The adults' risk assessment duties
  • The duties to protect adults’ online safety
  • The duties to protect content of democratic importance
  • The duties to protect journalistic content

Enforcement

The Act empowers Ofcom, the national communications regulator, to block access to particular user-to-user services or search engines from the United Kingdom, including through interventions by internet access providers and app stores. The regulator can also impose, through "service restriction orders", requirements on ancillary services which facilitate the provision of the regulated services.[20][21][22]

The Act lists in section 92 as examples (i) services which enable funds to be transferred, (ii) search engines which generate search results displaying or promoting content, and (iii) services which facilitate the display of advertising on a regulated service (for example, an ad server or an ad network). Ofcom must apply to a court for both Access Restriction and Service Restriction Orders.[17]

Section 44 of the Act also gives the Secretary of State the power to direct Ofcom to modify a draft code of practice for online safety if deemed necessary for reasons of public policy, national security, or public safety. Ofcom must comply with the direction and submit a revised draft to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may give Ofcom further directions to modify the draft, and once satisfied, must lay the modified draft before Parliament. Additionally, the Secretary of State can remove or obscure information before laying the review statement before Parliament.[23]

The Act contains provisions allowing eligible entities to bring super-complaints on behalf of consumers.[24] The process for doing so was set out in regulations in July 2025.[25]

Limitations

The Act has provisions to impose legal requirements ensuring that content removals do not arbitrarily remove or infringe access to what it defines as journalistic content.[20] Large social networks are required to protect "democratically important" content, such as user-submitted posts supporting or opposing particular political parties or policies.[26] The government stated that news publishers' own websites, as well as reader comments on such websites, are not within the intended scope of the law.[20][22]

Age verification

Section 12 of the Act states that service providers have a duty to prevent children from seeing "primary priority content that is harmful to children". This includes pornographic images, and content that encourages, promotes, or provides instructions for eating disorders, self-harm, or suicide. The Act says that service providers must use age verification or age estimation technology in order to prevent users from being able to access primary priority content unless they are appropriately-aged: the provision applies to all services that allow categories of primary priority content to be made available, including social networks and internet pornography services.[1][27]

Other provisions

The Act adds two new offences to the Sexual Offences Act 2003: sending images of a person's genitals (cyberflashing),[28] or sharing or threatening to share intimate images.[29] The first conviction for cyberflashing under the new law occurred in March 2024 following a guilty plea.[30][31]

The Act also updates and extends a number of existing communication offences. The false communications offence contained in section 179 replaces the offence previously found in s127(2)(a) and (b) of the Communications Act 2003.[32][33] (The existing s127(1) offence remains in force.)[34] To be prosecuted under section 179, a defendant must be shown to have known the information they transmitted to be false, and that they had an intention to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to those receiving the message. Peter Coe of Birmingham Law School has suggested these requirements might make it hard to successfully prosecute offenders under this offence as "falsity is often difficult to ascertain", and "the offence's two-pronged mens rea, combined with the general difficulty in ascertaining falsity and non-trivial harm, and the current lack of clarity over the threshold, will make the offence difficult to prove, particularly in respect of borderline cases, which could further limit the offence's scope".[35] After the 2024 Southport stabbings and ensuing riots, several individuals were prosecuted for knowingly spreading "fake news". For example, Dimitrie Stoica was jailed for three months for falsely claiming in a TikTok livestream that he was "running for his life" from rioters in Derby.[36]

Section 181 creates an offence of sending a message (via electronic or non-electronic means) that "conveys a threat of death or serious harm".[37] This can be tried summarily or on indictment.[38]

Section 183 creates an offence of "sending or showing flashing images electronically" if it is "reasonably foreseeable that an individual with epilepsy would be among the individuals who would view it", the sender intends to cause that person harm, and they have "no reasonable excuse".[39][40] This is intended to try and prevent "epilepsy trolling".[41]

Section 184 makes "encouraging or assisting serious self-harm" a criminal offence. This is similar to the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide contained in the Suicide Act 1961.[42] The first conviction under this section occurred in July 2025. Tyler Webb used the messaging app Telegram to encourage a woman he had met on a mental health support forum to harm herself and send him pictures of the resulting injuries, and to attempt suicide while he watched on camera.[43][44]

Legislative process and timetable

In 2021, the draft bill was given pre-legislative scrutiny by a joint committee of Members of the House of Commons and peers from the House of Lords.[45] The 2021 draft bill included within scope any pornographic site which has functionality to allow for user-to-user services, but those which do not have this functionality, or choose to remove it, were not in scope in the draft published by the government.[17] Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, addressed the House of Commons DCMS Select Committee to confirm he would consider a proposal during the pre-legislative scrutiny to extend the scope of the Act to all commercial pornographic websites.[46]

Section 212 of the final Act repeals part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which required mandatory age verification to access online pornography but was subsequently not enforced by the government.[47] According to the then government, the Act addresses the major concern expressed by campaigners such as the Open Rights Group about the risk to user privacy with the Digital Economy Act's requirement for age verification by creating, on services within scope of the legislation, "A duty to have regard to the importance of... protecting users from unwarranted infringements of privacy, when deciding on, and implementing, safety policies and procedures."[48][49][17] In February 2022, the Digital Economy Minister, Chris Philp, announced that the bill would be amended to bring commercial pornographic websites within its scope.[50]

Civil liberties organisations such as Big Brother Watch and the Open Rights Group criticised the bill for its proposals to restrain the publication of lawful speech that was otherwise deemed harmful, which may amount to censorship or the "silencing of marginalised voices and unpopular views".[21][26][51] As a result, in November 2022, measures intended to require big technology platforms to take down "legal but harmful" materials were replaced with the requirement to provide systems to avoid viewing such content.[8]

In September 2023, during the third reading in the Lords, Lord Parkinson presented a ministerial statement from the government stating that the controversial powers allowing Ofcom to break end-to-end encryption would not be used immediately. This followed statements from several tech firms, including Signal, suggesting they would withdraw from the UK market rather than weaken their encryption. Nevertheless, the provisions pertaining to end-to-end encryption weakening were not removed from the Act and Ofcom can at any time issue notices requiring the breaking of end-to-end encryption technology.[6]

Reception

Supporters of the Act have said it is necessary for online child protection.[13] Critics have said the Act grants the Government of the United Kingdom extensive powers to regulate speech, set enforcement priorities, and pressure platforms into removing content without judicial oversight.[12][52][11]

Academic responses

Alan Woodward, a cybersecurity expert at the University of Surrey, described the Act's surveillance provisions as "technically dangerous and ethically questionable", stating that the government's approach could make the internet less safe, not more. He added that the Act makes mass surveillance "almost an inevitability" as security forces would be liable to mission creep, using the justification of "exceptional circumstances" to extend searches beyond their original remit.[7] Elena Abrusci, a scholar at Brunel Law School, suggests that the OSA provides adequate legal basis for service providers to remove illegal content, but does not adequately protect users from disinformation and online harassment, which is necessary for ensuring political participation.[53]

Charities and human rights organisations

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) said the Act's passage was "a momentous day for children" and that it would help prevent abuse.[54] The Samaritans, which had lobbied to expand the Bill's reach to protect vulnerable users, also lent the final Act its cautious support. The organisation said it was a step forward, but criticised the government for not fulfilling its ambition to make the United Kingdom the "safest place to be online".[55][56]

British human rights organisation Article 19 warned that the Act is "an extremely complex and incoherent piece of legislation" and "fails in effectively addressing the threat to human rights" such as freedom of expression and access to information.[52] Mark Johnson, Legal and Policy Officer at Big Brother Watch, said it was a "censor's charter" that undermines the right to freedom of expression and privacy.[12] In February 2024, the European Court of Human Rights had previously ruled that requiring degraded end-to-end encryption "cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society" and was incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[11]

Industry responses

A number of websites have stated that they would close as a result of the Act. London Fixed Gear and Single Speed, a forum for bicycle enthusiasts, announced their closure citing the high cost of legal compliance, along with Microcosm, a provider of forum hosting for non-commercial, non-profit communities.[57][58] Some sites have instead blocked UK users, including the alt-tech social networking service Gab[59][60] and Gen AI platform Civit.ai.[61]

Major technology firms have raised concerns over the Act's implications for user privacy and encryption. Apple Inc. called the legislation a "serious threat" to end-to-end encryption, warning that it could force the company to weaken security features designed to protect users from surveillance.[10] Meta Platforms similarly stated that it would rather have its WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger services blocked in the UK than weaken encryption standards.[62]

Some websites and apps stated they would introduce age verification systems for users in response to a 25 July 2025 deadline set by Ofcom.[63] These include pornographic websites, but also other websites and services such as networks Bluesky (verification via Kids Web Services (KWS)), Discord, Tinder, Bumble, Feeld, Grindr, Hinge, Reddit (verification via Persona) X, and Spotify.[64][65][66]

Political responses

In response to criticisms of the Act, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said it is necessary to protect children from online content such as "suicide sites".[67] The National Crime Agency, an agency under the Home Office, also insisted the legislation is necessary to safeguard children from online harms.[13]

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, one of the bill's most vocal opponents, has called the Act "borderline dystopian" and said he would repeal it if elected to government.[68] Fellow Reform leader Zia Yusuf described the legislation as "an assault on freedom".[69]

The government of Jersey will not enforce the law in the territory, citing "inadequacies" in the legislation. There were early objections from the Jersey government that the law did not include a permissive extent clause to enable it to join in on enforcement, but acknowledged that the failure to include such a clause "in hindsight, might be a good thing". The territory will instead develop its own legislation for online safety.[70]

Public responses

Following the enactment of this law, there was a significant rise in downloads of VPN services by users in the UK, since these can circumvent age verification requirements by routing traffic through another country without such regulations.[71] Some users had also successfully bypassed photo-based age verification services, such as Persona, using images of characters from the video game Death Stranding.[72] A petition calling for the repeal of the law attracted over 500,000 signatures on the UK Parliament petitions website.[73]

Wikipedia responses

English Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Public interest platforms such as Wikipedia have also raised strong objections, suggesting that the legislation risks undermining non-profit and community-governed websites. Rebecca MacKinnon of the Wikimedia Foundation said the Act was "harsh" and failed to distinguish between commercial tech giants and public knowledge projects.[74] Both the Foundation and Wikimedia UK have rejected calls to implement age verification or identity checks, citing concerns about data minimisation, privacy, and editorial independence.[14][75] In June 2023, they issued an open letter urging lawmakers to exempt public interest platforms from the Act's scope.[15][76]

In May 2025, the Wikimedia Foundation launched a legal challenge against potential designation as a "category one" service under the Act, which would subject Wikipedia to the most stringent requirements.[77] The Foundation warned that complying with the law would compromise Wikipedia's open editing model and invite state-driven censorship or manipulation. The Daily Telegraph reported in July 2025 that Wikipedia may restrict access for UK users if the government insists on full compliance.[78] The High Court of Justice dismissed the challenge in August 2025,[16] stating that Wikipedia was not yet designated a Category 1 service but that the Foundation could rechallenge the ruling if it is designated as such.[79]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b "Online Safety Act 2023". www.legislation.gov.uk.
  2. ^ Landi, Martyn (26 October 2023). "Online Safety Act becomes law in the UK". The Independent. Archived from the original on 27 October 2023. Retrieved 27 October 2023.
  3. ^ "Online Safety Act 2023". UK Parliament. 27 October 2023. Retrieved 27 October 2023.
  4. ^ Rahman-Jones, Imran; Vallance, Chris (26 October 2023). "Online Safety Bill: Beefed up internet rules become law". BBC News. Archived from the original on 26 October 2023. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
  5. ^ Porter, Jon (26 October 2023). "The UK's controversial Online Safety Bill finally becomes law". The Verge. Archived from the original on 26 October 2023. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
  6. ^ a b Lomas, Natasha (6 September 2023). "Ministerial statement on UK's Online Safety Bill seen as steering out of encryption clash". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 28 September 2023. Retrieved 30 July 2025.
  7. ^ a b Guest, Peter (6 September 2023). "Britain Admits Defeat in Controversial Fight to Break Encryption". Wired. Archived from the original on 24 January 2025. Retrieved 25 January 2025.
  8. ^ a b "Online Safety Bill: Plan to make big tech remove harmful content axed". BBC News. 28 November 2022. Archived from the original on 13 May 2025. Retrieved 29 November 2022.
  9. ^ Sandle, Paul (29 November 2022). "UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in favour of free speech". Reuters. Archived from the original on 29 November 2022. Retrieved 29 November 2022.
  10. ^ a b Messenger, Alexander (28 June 2023). "Apple calls UK's Online Safety Bill a "serious threat" to end-to-end encryption". 24zero. Retrieved 29 June 2023.
  11. ^ a b c Claburn, Thomas (15 February 2024). "European Court of Human Rights declares backdoored encryption is illegal". The Register. Archived from the original on 18 February 2024. Retrieved 18 February 2024.
  12. ^ a b c "Online Safety Bill a threat to human rights warn campaigners". Open Rights Group. 16 November 2022. Retrieved 1 May 2023.
  13. ^ a b c "Braverman and Facebook clash over private message plans". BBC News. 19 September 2023. Retrieved 20 September 2023.
  14. ^ a b "Wikipedia will not perform Online Safety Bill age checks". BBC News. 28 April 2023. Archived from the original on 1 May 2023. Retrieved 1 May 2023.
  15. ^ a b Iles, Natasha (29 June 2023). "Open call by UK civil society to exempt public interest projects from the Online Safety Bill". Wikimedia UK. Retrieved 3 July 2023.
  16. ^ a b "Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act verification rules". BBC News. 11 August 2025. In particular the foundation is concerned the extra duties required - if Wikipedia was classed as Category 1 - would mean it would have to verify the identity of its contributors, undermining their privacy and safety. The only way it could avoid being classed as Category 1 would be to cut the number of people in the UK who could access the online encyclopaedia by about three-quarters, or disable key functions on the site.
  17. ^ a b c d e f g h "Draft Online Safety Bill" (PDF). 12 May 2021. Retrieved 15 May 2021.
  18. ^ Thompson, Marcelo (15 October 2015), Beyond Gatekeeping: The Normative Responsibility of Internet Intermediaries (SSRN Scholarly Paper), Rochester, NY, SSRN 2683301, retrieved 29 May 2024{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  19. ^ "Online harm reduction - a statutory duty of care and regulator". Carnegie UK Trust. Archived from the original on 29 May 2024. Retrieved 29 May 2024.
  20. ^ a b c Lomas, Natasha (12 May 2021). "UK publishes draft Online Safety Bill". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 12 May 2021. Retrieved 12 May 2021.
  21. ^ a b "Tech firms could face fines over harmful content in government's new online safety bill". Sky News. 12 May 2021. Archived from the original on 12 May 2021. Retrieved 18 May 2021.
  22. ^ a b Wakefield, Jane (12 May 2021). "Government lays out plans to protect users online". BBC News. Archived from the original on 12 May 2021. Retrieved 12 May 2021.
  23. ^ "Online Safety Bill (as brought from the Commons)". 18 January 2023. Archived from the original on 25 February 2023.
  24. ^ "Online Safety Act super-complaints process must not overwhelm Ofcom". Pinsent Masons. 25 July 2025. Retrieved 25 July 2025.
  25. ^ "The Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025", legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, SI 2025/919
  26. ^ a b Hern, Alex (12 May 2021). "Online safety bill 'a recipe for censorship', say campaigners". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 14 May 2021. Retrieved 12 May 2021.
  27. ^ Griffin, Andrew (24 July 2025). "UK porn age verification: How will it work and what will happen to your data?". The Independent. Archived from the original on 25 July 2025. Retrieved 30 July 2025.
  28. ^ "Online Safety Act 2023: Section 187", legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 2023 c. 50 (s. 187)
  29. ^ "Online Safety Act 2023: Section 188", legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 2023 c. 50 (s. 188)
  30. ^ Grierson, Jamie (19 March 2024). "Court jails first person convicted of cyberflashing in England". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 9 February 2025. Retrieved 11 July 2025.
  31. ^ "Cyber-flashing 'not a joke', warns CPS prosecutor". BBC News. 20 March 2024. Archived from the original on 12 July 2025. Retrieved 11 July 2025.
  32. ^ "Online Safety Act 2023: Section 179", legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 2023 c. 50 (s. 179)
  33. ^ Ormerod, David; Perry, David, eds. (2024). Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2025 (35 ed.). Oxford University Press. B18.31. ISBN 9780198924333.
  34. ^ Woods, Lorna; Antoniou, Alexandros (3 September 2024). "Is the Online Safety Act "fit for purpose"?". LSE Blogs. Archived from the original on 13 January 2025. Retrieved 30 July 2025.
  35. ^ Coe, Peter (1 December 2024). "Some thoughts on false information and the Online Safety Act 2023". Communications Law. 29 (4): 143–145 – via Lexis.
  36. ^ "Man jailed after fake claim on TikTok". www.derbyshire.police.uk. Retrieved 7 August 2025.
  37. ^ Ormerod, David; Perry, David, eds. (2024). Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2025 (35 ed.). Oxford University Press. B18.35. ISBN 9780198924333.
  38. ^ "Online Safety Act 2023: Section 181", legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 2023 c. 50 (s. 181)
  39. ^ "Online Safety Act 2023: Section 183", legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 2023 c. 50 (s. 183)
  40. ^ Ormerod, David; Perry, David, eds. (2024). Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2025 (35 ed.). Oxford University Press. B18.37-39. ISBN 9780198924333.
  41. ^ "Zach's Law: West Yorkshire boy hails victory over online trolls". BBC News. 20 September 2023. Archived from the original on 11 February 2025. Retrieved 17 February 2025.
  42. ^ Adams, Charley (26 November 2022). "Encouraging self-harm to be criminalised in Online Safety Bill". BBC News. Archived from the original on 12 July 2025. Retrieved 17 February 2025.
  43. ^ Carroll, Mickey (4 July 2025). "Tyler Webb sentenced to nine years imprisonment after persuading victim to attempt suicide online". Sky News. Archived from the original on 8 July 2025. Retrieved 11 July 2025.
  44. ^ Hunt, Dan (4 July 2025). "Tyler Webb: Man who encouraged woman to kill herself sentenced". BBC News. Archived from the original on 5 July 2025. Retrieved 11 July 2025.
  45. ^ "Domestic Abuse Bill - Wednesday 17 March 2021". Hansard. Archived from the original on 15 May 2021. Retrieved 15 May 2021.
  46. ^ "Porn blocker 'missing' from Online Safety Bill prompts concern". BBC News. 18 May 2021. Retrieved 12 August 2025.
  47. ^ Grant, Harriet (5 May 2021). "UK government faces action over lack of age checks on adult sites". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 3 June 2023. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
  48. ^ "Digital Economy Bill Could Lead to Ashley Madison Style Data Breaches". Open Rights Group. 13 September 2016. Archived from the original on 15 May 2021. Retrieved 15 May 2021.
  49. ^ "Digital Economy Act 2017 Part 3". gov.uk. 12 May 2021. Archived from the original on 15 May 2021. Retrieved 15 May 2021.
  50. ^ Milmo, Dan; Waterson, Jim (8 February 2022). "Porn sites in UK will have to check ages in planned update to online safety bill". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 February 2022. Retrieved 30 July 2025.
  51. ^ Landi, Martyn (13 May 2021). "Online Safety Bill labelled 'state-backed censorship' by campaigners". www.standard.co.uk. Archived from the original on 18 May 2021. Retrieved 18 May 2021.
  52. ^ a b "UK: Online Safety Bill is a serious threat to human rights online". ARTICLE 19. 25 April 2022. Archived from the original on 1 May 2023. Retrieved 1 May 2023.
  53. ^ Abrusci, Elena (2 July 2024). "The UK Online Safety Act, the EU Digital Services Act and online disinformation: is the right to political participation adequately protected?*". Journal of Media Law. 16 (2): 440–467. doi:10.1080/17577632.2024.2425551. ISSN 1757-7632.
  54. ^ "The Online Safety Bill has been passed in "a momentous day for children"". NSPCC. 19 September 2023. Archived from the original on 28 October 2023. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
  55. ^ "Online Safety Bill: The ins and outs".
  56. ^ "Samaritans responds to the passing of the Online Safety Bill today". Samaritans. 19 September 2023. Archived from the original on 28 October 2023. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
  57. ^ Naughton, John (12 January 2025). "Note to No 10: one speed doesn't fit all when it comes to online safety". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 11 July 2025.
  58. ^ Masnick, Mike (20 December 2024). "Death Of A Forum: How The UK's Online Safety Act Is Killing Communities". Techdirt. Archived from the original on 22 December 2024. Retrieved 11 July 2025.
  59. ^ "Gab - UK Access Restricted". uk.gab.com. Retrieved 14 August 2025.
  60. ^ Mak, Aaron (29 July 2025). "The UK's new tech law triggers upheaval". Politico. Retrieved 15 August 2025. Gab, a U.S.-based platform that hosts Nazi and other extremist content, has gone completely dark in the UK to avoid financial and criminal penalties under the safety act
  61. ^ "🚫 Access Restricted for UK Visitors". civitai.com. Archived from the original on 29 July 2025. Retrieved 14 August 2025.
  62. ^ "WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief". The Guardian. 9 March 2023. Retrieved 5 August 2025.
  63. ^ "Age checks for online safety – what you need to know as a user". Ofcom. 26 June 2025. Archived from the original on 16 July 2025. Retrieved 20 July 2025.
  64. ^ Cole, Samantha (30 July 2025). "Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content". 404 Media. Archived from the original on 30 July 2025. Retrieved 3 August 2025.
  65. ^ Brodkin, Jon (14 July 2025). "Reddit's UK users must now prove they're 18 to view adult content". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 16 July 2025. Retrieved 24 July 2025.
  66. ^ Carroll, Mickey (26 June 2025). "Major pornography sites to introduce 'robust' age verification for UK users". Sky News. Retrieved 11 July 2025.
    Goodwins, Rupert. "Selling your digital soul to use Bluesky's DMs is the law". The Register. Retrieved 24 July 2025.
    Roth, Emma (10 July 2025). "Bluesky is rolling out age verification in the UK". The Verge. Archived from the original on 11 July 2025. Retrieved 11 July 2025.
    "Age Assurance on X". help.x.com. Archived from the original on 26 July 2025. Retrieved 24 July 2025.
    "New internet rules come into force this week - here's what will change". Sky News. Archived from the original on 26 July 2025. Retrieved 24 July 2025.
    Iovine, Anna (23 July 2025). "Dating apps to add age checks in the UK". Mashable. Archived from the original on 30 July 2025. Retrieved 30 July 2025.
  67. ^ Parker, Emily (28 July 2025). "UK government responds after 350,000 demand law is repealed". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 12 August 2025.
  68. ^ Walker, Peter (28 July 2025). "Reform UK vows to repeal 'borderline dystopian' Online Safety Act". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 July 2025. Retrieved 30 July 2025.
  69. ^ Yusuf, Zia (26 July 2025). "The Online Safety Act is an assault on freedom". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 26 July 2025. Retrieved 29 July 2025.
  70. ^ Jeune, James (6 August 2025). "Jersey not "hooking in" to UK Online Safety Act "might be a good thing"". Jersey Evening Post.
  71. ^ "VPNs top App Store charts as UK age verification kicks in". BBC News. 28 July 2025. Retrieved 29 July 2025.
  72. ^ Gil, Bruce. "'Death Stranding' Is Helping UK Users Bypass Age Verification Laws". Gizmodo. Retrieved 30 July 2025.
  73. ^ Gross, Jenny (7 August 2025). "Britain Forces Porn Sites to Get Serious on 'Age-Gating'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 7 August 2025. Retrieved 11 August 2025. More than 500,000 people have signed a petition to repeal the Online Safety Act
  74. ^ "Wikipedia criticises 'harsh' new Online Safety Bill plans". BBC News. 17 January 2023. Retrieved 3 July 2023.
  75. ^ Milmo, Dan (28 April 2023). "UK readers may lose access to Wikipedia amid online safety bill requirements". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 30 April 2023. Retrieved 3 July 2023.
  76. ^ Black, Damien (30 June 2023). "Wikimedia launches petition against UK Online Safety Bill". Cybernews. Archived from the original on 2 July 2023. Retrieved 3 July 2023.
  77. ^ Milmo, Dan (8 May 2025). "Wikipedia challenging UK law it says exposes it to 'manipulation and vandalism'". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 12 May 2025.
  78. ^ Field, Matthew (23 July 2025). "Wikipedia threatens to limit UK access to website". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 26 July 2025. Retrieved 28 July 2025.
  79. ^ Brodkin, Jon (11 August 2025). "Wikipedia loses UK Safety Act challenge, worries it will have to verify user IDs". Ars Technica. Retrieved 11 August 2025.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.