7 ms·

Without passing judgment on the act, this is incredibly misleading. I found the source of the original quotes[0], and they are taken quite out of context. From

Without passing judgment on the act, this is incredibly misleading. I found the source of the original quotes[0], and they are taken quite out of context. From the article: >First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but was about regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse”, a phrase that rather gives away the political thinking behind the act. From the source (emphasis mine): > On 18 March 2024, the Secretary of State was provided with a Submission which made it clear that Category 1 duties were not primarily aimed at pornographic content or the protection of children _(which were dealt with by other parts of the Act)_. Rather, the aim of Category 1 was to capture services that have a significant influence over public discourse. The submission offered, as a possible option, requesting information from Ofcom as to _how content recommender systems function on different types of service_. The quote leaves out "which were dealt with by other parts of the Act" and the fact that the subject was specifically "Category 1 duties" not the Act in its entirety. It also doesn't mention that the subject was on content recommender systems. _Again_ this is not a judgment on the Act itself, but providing the full context, which does change the message. 0: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Science,_Innovation_and_Technology_(2025,_EWHC) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v_Secret...

CommanderData 1y ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3l0e4vr0ko https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3l0e4vr0ko I strongly suspect it's also meant to curtail growing support among youth for Palestine in the Israel/Gaza conflict. https://www.facebook.com/reel/665564933022223 https://www.facebook.com/reel/665564933022223 Essentially creating an internet for children/teens that echos the government narrative.
- spacebanana7 1y ago
  The online safety act was drafted long before Oct 2023. But broadly I agree, in the sense that the government are uncomfortable with political movements they lack the ability to shape or control. In hindsight it's incredible just how much influence the British government has historically had over media. The largest TV and radio stations were often directly government owned (BBC, Radio 1, Channel 4) and many newspapers are vulnerable to defamation / contempt of court accusations / injunctions when they sway too far from the official narratives. Especially on any issue adjacent to criminal justice. Of course, they'll say all of the state owned media operated without political direction. And that regulators / prosecutors operated in a politically neutral fashion with due process and impartiality.
  - h2zizzle 1y ago
    Passage and implementation dates count. The Tiktok ban in America was also first floated (and died) well before October 2023. It was revived and passed after pro-Palestinian videos blew up on the platform.
  - jemmyw 1y ago
    > Of course, they'll say all of the state owned media operated without political direction Before Brexit I would have said so too. The government regularly clashed with the BBC. And Channel 4 news was a delight. Recently the TV channels have clearly been brought into line via governance and the need to change the funding.
    - closewith 1y ago
      > Before Brexit I would have said so too. Given the dubbing of Gerry Adams, the coverage of Iraq/Afghanistan war crimes, and anything related to Ireland, I don't know you could possibly have believed this. It was just that pre-Brexit, you agreed with the propaganda.
      - spacebanana7 1y ago
        Propaganda is perhaps at its most poisonous when it's stuff you agree with. It's so much harder to see, and likely far more effective at bypassing our critical thinking.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- nrawe 1y ago
  So, here's the thing, the BBC has a whole section of its news site dedicated to the conflict, including documentation of alleged atrocities committed by Israel and Hamas. Its produced documentaries detailing the settlers movement. The BBC is paid for by the taxpayers. LBC regularly has pro-Israel and pro-Palestine people on. GBNews, Sky and the Murdock-verse have their views mostly from a pro-Israel POV, more left-leaning papers like the Guardian continue to report in favour of the Palestinian people (not Hamas). So if the government had a major problem with the a free speech, its doing a pretty good job of not showing that. In the Commons, the argument hasn't been against the humanitarian crisis faced. However, the situation is more complicated when Hamas and a significant portion of the Israeli government want to eradicate each other and end any hopes of the two-state solution, and act accordingly violent. The situation with Palestine Action being made proscribed also isn't because of their beliefs, but their actions. You can't commit criminal activity like destruction of property and violence against people for political reasons and not come under the remit of anti-terror legislation. The same has happened to environmentalist groups that have taken their actions too far, and for groups like the IRA pre-Good Friday agreement. I could walk to my local town centre with a placard for either saying: "Stop Genocide in Palestine" or "Down with Hamas" this weekend and not be arrested.
  - vidarh 1y ago
    > I could walk to my local town centre with a placard for either saying: "Stop Genocide in Palestine" or "Down with Hamas" this weekend and not be arrested. You might "just" get threatened with arrest: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-t... Or you might get arrested: https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/peter-tatchell-arrested-at-palestine-protest-on-fake-charges/ https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/peter-tatchell-arres... There are many similar ones, but they are now much harder to find due to the hundreds of arrests over Palestine Action.
    - nrawe 1y ago
      Right, supporting PA is illegal, opposing what's happening in Gaza is not. That's why I specifically didn't say having a placard with a message supporting PA, but "Stop Genocide in Palestine". That is the detail that matters.
icarouse 1y ago
This is unfortunately quite a common tactic being used by people opposed to the OSA. Recently there was an article in the i newspaper which claimed you have to show ID to order pizza online, and it's because of the OSA. Turns out their source was a misleading tweet by a political activist who had ordered from Deliveroo or similar and were seeing the usual message shown to people who order alcohol. Nothing to do with the OSA at all.
- Mindwipe 1y ago
  Hmm. New account, no history before this thread. Not at all suspicious. So, DSIT, Age Verification Industry Association or Molly Rose astroturfer?
  - dambi0 1y ago
    A new account would tend not to have any history. It seems uncharitable to immediately assume bad faith. What is it about the content of the comment you disagree with? I think it provides a further example to the parent post that regardless of what one thinks about the Act, the discourse isn’t entirely neutral.
  - mattmanser 1y ago
    There's a bunch of HNers who always rotate accounts. It's a little annoying but a green commentator in itself doesn't mean an astro turfer. It's also a perfectly reasonable point, you just don't agree with it.
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      I believe rotating accounts is against the policies of the site, although I totally understand the impulse.
- crtasm 1y ago
  So the journalist or their editor didn't do any basic fact checking, that's also a sadly common tactic.
NoboruWataya 1y ago
Doesn't this just mean that it is about "protecting children" and influence over public discourse? The fact remains that the Category 1 rules impose onerous duties on websites that have a significant influence over public discourse, with the effect that many of them will see their influence significantly reduced and may have to fold altogether if they cannot afford to comply. In fact it is pretty obvious from the OSA itself that the definition of Category 1 is not primarily about capturing porn sites.
- exasperaited 1y ago
  > In fact it is pretty obvious from the OSA itself that the definition of Category 1 is not primarily about capturing porn sites. Indeed it is not. The main focus of the Category 1 stuff is evidently whether big sites are actually doing enough to allow children (and parents) to report threats and danger and not see content they don't want to see. It is for example about trying to reduce harms to children from pro-suicide and pro-anorexia content as well, and about compelling the Category 1 services to provide mechanisms so children can report bullying, grooming and online sexual exploitation from other users. And also to provide some access to oversight and reporting from to those mechanisms. That is to say: if a Category 1 service is open to children, it needs to have workable mechanisms to allow children to report threatening and disturbing content and messaging from other users, it needs to at least provide context/warnings around and probably filter pro-suicide and pro-anorexia content, and it is required to be able to present evidence of how those tools are being used and whether they are effective. If you've ever tried to get Facebook to take down a scam ad (like, for example, the plethora of ads now using an AI-generated Martin Lewis) you will understand that there are genuine concerns about whether the tools available to non-adult users are effective for anything at all. Category 1 regulations have not yet been finalised and they are not merely being imposed; the likely Category 1 services are being consulted.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    > It is for example about trying to reduce harms to children from pro-suicide and pro-anorexia content as well, and about compelling the Category 1 services to provide mechanisms so children can report bullying, grooming and online sexual exploitation from other users. Except ... if the government really wanted to improve children's and teenage mental health in the UK, they could easily increase the budget for treatments and youth services. That would be the first thing to do, and they're doing the opposite. Which shows that they just don't care. Taking needed money away from the most vulnerable children on one hand and claiming that new legislation protects children ... does not sum to protecting children.
mcjiggerlog 1y ago
There oddly seems to be a concerted effort online to paint the UK as some kind of failing police state recently. This narrative seems to have really taken off with some Americans, who now seem completely convinced that the UK government is some kind of totalitarian oppressor who are snatching people off the streets. Meanwhile, Brits just look on at this narrative wondering what the hell they're talking about. Look, I'm against this legislation too, but if you actually live in the UK or even just consume mainstream British media, you'd soon realise that this narrative that's being pushed is a distortion that doesn't match day to day reality.
- summerdown2 1y ago
  I suspect it's projection as a defense, because a number of Brits do see the US as some sort of failing police state that's snatching people off the streets. I guess if you get your attack in first you'll be able to go "we're not the fascists, you're the fascists." None of that is to excuse the legislation, of course, which is not very good and will have a lot of poor consequences.
- crinkly 1y ago
  If it was a police state, JD Vance wouldn’t be getting it on his holiday here from protesters and video vans driving around and being refused service in a pub. It could end up that way but we’re not there yet. If we do get there we tend to make the French look like amateur protestors (look up poll tax riots). I’m less worried about a police state than a corporate dystopia. The attendee list at Trump’s inauguration would be far scarier to me than the OSA is.
  - throwaway97202 1y ago
    >If it was a police state, JD Vance wouldn’t be getting it on his holiday here from protesters and video vans driving around and being refused service in a pub. "Is it true that there is freedom of speech in the USSR, just like in the USA?" "Yes. In the USA, you can stand in front of the White House in Washington, DC, and yell, "Down with Ronald Reagan," and you will not be punished. Equally, you can also stand in Red Square in Moscow and yell, "Down with Ronald Reagan," and you will not be punished."
fleebee 1y ago
The reading of the quote that the tweeter provided is even worse. I'd rather not be subjected to fake news on HN.
skeezyboy 1y ago
instead of posting the journalists story, HN posted some randomers tweet. thats the problem
- closewith 1y ago
  Simon McGarr is an Irish solicitor who is a widely respected expert in privacy law and how it impacts online services, so not exactly a randomer. He also has a track record of being right about the unintended consequences of online regulation.
fmajid 1y ago
The numbering as Category 1 does suggest that is the first and foremost purpose of the Act.
- happymellon 1y ago
  Normally if there is something they want, but don't think the public would approve then it gets wrapped up as clause f, section 232, paragraph 9. Aka, this rule does not apply to all current and former members of parliament clause.
pyrale 1y ago
I'm going to say something that many here won't like given the usual reaction to European regulation, but social media platforms have enabled multiple foreign influence political campaign operations during election times in Europe, and notably led to the invalidation of the 2024 Romanian presidential election [1]. As of recently, probably bolstered by the new US admin, US social media platforms have taken a more confrontational towards regulators in EU countries where they operate. For instance, Twitter refused to cooperate with a French investigation [2]. It really is unsurprising that European countries muscle up their legislative response to what they see increasingly as media platforms going rogue in support of operations aimed to distort political debate in Europe. The only alternative would be to outright ban US social media and build EU platforms. [1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lection_pr%C3%A9sidentielle_roumaine_de_2024 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lection_pr%C3%A9sidentie... [2]: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2025/07/21/x-refuses-to-cooperate-with-french-probe-into-algorithm-bias_6743577_13.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2025/07/21/x-refuse...
- _heimdall 1y ago
  I wouldn't expect many to take issue with your point here. The problem at hand isn't whether or not social media has been a net positive or net negative, the problem is whether the government should be in the business of arresting those who say things the government doesn't want said. We can deal with social media directly without government censorship and arresting the public. Remove any legal protections that give social media a free pass regarding what is posted on their sites. If we want people's speech to be censored, at a minimum that should be done by the private company who is financially on the hook for what content they allow.
- varispeed 1y ago
  OSA has nothing to do with prevention of influence though. It's about building scaffolding for mass surveillance. If it was about influence, there are better ways to handle it, without forcing entire population to give up their personal data to some dodgy "age-check" companies. Many run by foreign hostile intelligence agencies.
  - 1y ago
dgroshev 1y ago
It's a misleading quote from a misleading article. It's remarkable how the article never mentions that the Act was passed by the Tories, blaming "civil servants" for it. The author did frame the Act very differently back in 2023 when it was passed [0]: > It is high time the government took action, by which I do not mean passing the Online Safety Bill, an approach that is like putting a new filter in the opium pipe. [0]: https://archive.ph/TCnTf https://archive.ph/TCnTf
wzdd 1y ago
The source includes a direct comment from the secretary of state that Category 1 of the OSA is about regulating sites with a significant influence over public discourse. Therefore it makes perfect sense to say that the OSA is at least in part about regulating sites with a significant influence over public discourse. I find that at least somewhat alarming; is the "incredibly misleading" part that this is not all that the OSA is about? (For reference, a rough description of the Categories are: you use a recommender system or allow sharing the site's content (1), you're a general-purpose search engine (2A), or you allow DMs between users (2B). Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348267174 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348267174 )

CommanderData 1y ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3l0e4vr0ko https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3l0e4vr0ko I strongly suspect it's also meant to curtail growing support among youth for Palestine in the Israel/Gaza conflict. https://www.facebook.com/reel/665564933022223 https://www.facebook.com/reel/665564933022223 Essentially creating an internet for children/teens that echos the government narrative.

spacebanana7 1y ago
The online safety act was drafted long before Oct 2023. But broadly I agree, in the sense that the government are uncomfortable with political movements they lack the ability to shape or control. In hindsight it's incredible just how much influence the British government has historically had over media. The largest TV and radio stations were often directly government owned (BBC, Radio 1, Channel 4) and many newspapers are vulnerable to defamation / contempt of court accusations / injunctions when they sway too far from the official narratives. Especially on any issue adjacent to criminal justice. Of course, they'll say all of the state owned media operated without political direction. And that regulators / prosecutors operated in a politically neutral fashion with due process and impartiality.
- h2zizzle 1y ago
  Passage and implementation dates count. The Tiktok ban in America was also first floated (and died) well before October 2023. It was revived and passed after pro-Palestinian videos blew up on the platform.
- jemmyw 1y ago
  > Of course, they'll say all of the state owned media operated without political direction Before Brexit I would have said so too. The government regularly clashed with the BBC. And Channel 4 news was a delight. Recently the TV channels have clearly been brought into line via governance and the need to change the funding.
  - closewith 1y ago
    > Before Brexit I would have said so too. Given the dubbing of Gerry Adams, the coverage of Iraq/Afghanistan war crimes, and anything related to Ireland, I don't know you could possibly have believed this. It was just that pre-Brexit, you agreed with the propaganda.
    - spacebanana7 1y ago
      Propaganda is perhaps at its most poisonous when it's stuff you agree with. It's so much harder to see, and likely far more effective at bypassing our critical thinking.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
nrawe 1y ago
So, here's the thing, the BBC has a whole section of its news site dedicated to the conflict, including documentation of alleged atrocities committed by Israel and Hamas. Its produced documentaries detailing the settlers movement. The BBC is paid for by the taxpayers. LBC regularly has pro-Israel and pro-Palestine people on. GBNews, Sky and the Murdock-verse have their views mostly from a pro-Israel POV, more left-leaning papers like the Guardian continue to report in favour of the Palestinian people (not Hamas). So if the government had a major problem with the a free speech, its doing a pretty good job of not showing that. In the Commons, the argument hasn't been against the humanitarian crisis faced. However, the situation is more complicated when Hamas and a significant portion of the Israeli government want to eradicate each other and end any hopes of the two-state solution, and act accordingly violent. The situation with Palestine Action being made proscribed also isn't because of their beliefs, but their actions. You can't commit criminal activity like destruction of property and violence against people for political reasons and not come under the remit of anti-terror legislation. The same has happened to environmentalist groups that have taken their actions too far, and for groups like the IRA pre-Good Friday agreement. I could walk to my local town centre with a placard for either saying: "Stop Genocide in Palestine" or "Down with Hamas" this weekend and not be arrested.
- vidarh 1y ago
  > I could walk to my local town centre with a placard for either saying: "Stop Genocide in Palestine" or "Down with Hamas" this weekend and not be arrested. You might "just" get threatened with arrest: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-t... Or you might get arrested: https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/peter-tatchell-arrested-at-palestine-protest-on-fake-charges/ https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/peter-tatchell-arres... There are many similar ones, but they are now much harder to find due to the hundreds of arrests over Palestine Action.
  - nrawe 1y ago
    Right, supporting PA is illegal, opposing what's happening in Gaza is not. That's why I specifically didn't say having a placard with a message supporting PA, but "Stop Genocide in Palestine". That is the detail that matters.

icarouse 1y ago

This is unfortunately quite a common tactic being used by people opposed to the OSA. Recently there was an article in the i newspaper which claimed you have to show ID to order pizza online, and it's because of the OSA. Turns out their source was a misleading tweet by a political activist who had ordered from Deliveroo or similar and were seeing the usual message shown to people who order alcohol. Nothing to do with the OSA at all.

Mindwipe 1y ago
Hmm. New account, no history before this thread. Not at all suspicious. So, DSIT, Age Verification Industry Association or Molly Rose astroturfer?
- dambi0 1y ago
  A new account would tend not to have any history. It seems uncharitable to immediately assume bad faith. What is it about the content of the comment you disagree with? I think it provides a further example to the parent post that regardless of what one thinks about the Act, the discourse isn’t entirely neutral.
- mattmanser 1y ago
  There's a bunch of HNers who always rotate accounts. It's a little annoying but a green commentator in itself doesn't mean an astro turfer. It's also a perfectly reasonable point, you just don't agree with it.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    I believe rotating accounts is against the policies of the site, although I totally understand the impulse.
crtasm 1y ago
So the journalist or their editor didn't do any basic fact checking, that's also a sadly common tactic.

NoboruWataya 1y ago

Doesn't this just mean that it is about "protecting children" and influence over public discourse? The fact remains that the Category 1 rules impose onerous duties on websites that have a significant influence over public discourse, with the effect that many of them will see their influence significantly reduced and may have to fold altogether if they cannot afford to comply. In fact it is pretty obvious from the OSA itself that the definition of Category 1 is not primarily about capturing porn sites.

exasperaited 1y ago
> In fact it is pretty obvious from the OSA itself that the definition of Category 1 is not primarily about capturing porn sites. Indeed it is not. The main focus of the Category 1 stuff is evidently whether big sites are actually doing enough to allow children (and parents) to report threats and danger and not see content they don't want to see. It is for example about trying to reduce harms to children from pro-suicide and pro-anorexia content as well, and about compelling the Category 1 services to provide mechanisms so children can report bullying, grooming and online sexual exploitation from other users. And also to provide some access to oversight and reporting from to those mechanisms. That is to say: if a Category 1 service is open to children, it needs to have workable mechanisms to allow children to report threatening and disturbing content and messaging from other users, it needs to at least provide context/warnings around and probably filter pro-suicide and pro-anorexia content, and it is required to be able to present evidence of how those tools are being used and whether they are effective. If you've ever tried to get Facebook to take down a scam ad (like, for example, the plethora of ads now using an AI-generated Martin Lewis) you will understand that there are genuine concerns about whether the tools available to non-adult users are effective for anything at all. Category 1 regulations have not yet been finalised and they are not merely being imposed; the likely Category 1 services are being consulted.
- spwa4 1y ago
  > It is for example about trying to reduce harms to children from pro-suicide and pro-anorexia content as well, and about compelling the Category 1 services to provide mechanisms so children can report bullying, grooming and online sexual exploitation from other users. Except ... if the government really wanted to improve children's and teenage mental health in the UK, they could easily increase the budget for treatments and youth services. That would be the first thing to do, and they're doing the opposite. Which shows that they just don't care. Taking needed money away from the most vulnerable children on one hand and claiming that new legislation protects children ... does not sum to protecting children.

mcjiggerlog 1y ago

There oddly seems to be a concerted effort online to paint the UK as some kind of failing police state recently. This narrative seems to have really taken off with some Americans, who now seem completely convinced that the UK government is some kind of totalitarian oppressor who are snatching people off the streets. Meanwhile, Brits just look on at this narrative wondering what the hell they're talking about. Look, I'm against this legislation too, but if you actually live in the UK or even just consume mainstream British media, you'd soon realise that this narrative that's being pushed is a distortion that doesn't match day to day reality.

summerdown2 1y ago
I suspect it's projection as a defense, because a number of Brits do see the US as some sort of failing police state that's snatching people off the streets. I guess if you get your attack in first you'll be able to go "we're not the fascists, you're the fascists." None of that is to excuse the legislation, of course, which is not very good and will have a lot of poor consequences.
crinkly 1y ago
If it was a police state, JD Vance wouldn’t be getting it on his holiday here from protesters and video vans driving around and being refused service in a pub. It could end up that way but we’re not there yet. If we do get there we tend to make the French look like amateur protestors (look up poll tax riots). I’m less worried about a police state than a corporate dystopia. The attendee list at Trump’s inauguration would be far scarier to me than the OSA is.
- throwaway97202 1y ago
  >If it was a police state, JD Vance wouldn’t be getting it on his holiday here from protesters and video vans driving around and being refused service in a pub. "Is it true that there is freedom of speech in the USSR, just like in the USA?" "Yes. In the USA, you can stand in front of the White House in Washington, DC, and yell, "Down with Ronald Reagan," and you will not be punished. Equally, you can also stand in Red Square in Moscow and yell, "Down with Ronald Reagan," and you will not be punished."

fleebee 1y ago

The reading of the quote that the tweeter provided is even worse. I'd rather not be subjected to fake news on HN.

skeezyboy 1y ago

instead of posting the journalists story, HN posted some randomers tweet. thats the problem

closewith 1y ago
Simon McGarr is an Irish solicitor who is a widely respected expert in privacy law and how it impacts online services, so not exactly a randomer. He also has a track record of being right about the unintended consequences of online regulation.

fmajid 1y ago

The numbering as Category 1 does suggest that is the first and foremost purpose of the Act.

happymellon 1y ago
Normally if there is something they want, but don't think the public would approve then it gets wrapped up as clause f, section 232, paragraph 9. Aka, this rule does not apply to all current and former members of parliament clause.

pyrale 1y ago

I'm going to say something that many here won't like given the usual reaction to European regulation, but social media platforms have enabled multiple foreign influence political campaign operations during election times in Europe, and notably led to the invalidation of the 2024 Romanian presidential election [1]. As of recently, probably bolstered by the new US admin, US social media platforms have taken a more confrontational towards regulators in EU countries where they operate. For instance, Twitter refused to cooperate with a French investigation [2]. It really is unsurprising that European countries muscle up their legislative response to what they see increasingly as media platforms going rogue in support of operations aimed to distort political debate in Europe. The only alternative would be to outright ban US social media and build EU platforms. [1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lection_pr%C3%A9sidentielle_roumaine_de_2024 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lection_pr%C3%A9sidentie... [2]: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2025/07/21/x-refuses-to-cooperate-with-french-probe-into-algorithm-bias_6743577_13.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2025/07/21/x-refuse...

_heimdall 1y ago
I wouldn't expect many to take issue with your point here. The problem at hand isn't whether or not social media has been a net positive or net negative, the problem is whether the government should be in the business of arresting those who say things the government doesn't want said. We can deal with social media directly without government censorship and arresting the public. Remove any legal protections that give social media a free pass regarding what is posted on their sites. If we want people's speech to be censored, at a minimum that should be done by the private company who is financially on the hook for what content they allow.
varispeed 1y ago
OSA has nothing to do with prevention of influence though. It's about building scaffolding for mass surveillance. If it was about influence, there are better ways to handle it, without forcing entire population to give up their personal data to some dodgy "age-check" companies. Many run by foreign hostile intelligence agencies.
- 1y ago

dgroshev 1y ago

It's a misleading quote from a misleading article. It's remarkable how the article never mentions that the Act was passed by the Tories, blaming "civil servants" for it. The author did frame the Act very differently back in 2023 when it was passed [0]: > It is high time the government took action, by which I do not mean passing the Online Safety Bill, an approach that is like putting a new filter in the opium pipe. [0]: https://archive.ph/TCnTf https://archive.ph/TCnTf

wzdd 1y ago

The source includes a direct comment from the secretary of state that Category 1 of the OSA is about regulating sites with a significant influence over public discourse. Therefore it makes perfect sense to say that the OSA is at least in part about regulating sites with a significant influence over public discourse. I find that at least somewhat alarming; is the "incredibly misleading" part that this is not all that the OSA is about? (For reference, a rough description of the Categories are: you use a recommender system or allow sharing the site's content (1), you're a general-purpose search engine (2A), or you allow DMs between users (2B). Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348267174 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348267174 )