Andy Burnham was the ID card minister under Blair; now he wants to urgently ban under-16s from accessing online content

 From May 2005 to May 2006, Andy Burnham was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office in Tony Blair’s government.

At that time, he pushed for digital IDs to be imposed on the population. On the campaign trail, he said that it was not the right time for Starmer to introduce digital IDs. Now, he’s saying that methods to ban under-16s need to be “urgently” put in place.

Any method used to ban under-16s from online content is the first step in imposing digital IDs.

It’s commonplace for politicians to lie to the public. Burnham is one of those politicians who will say anything to gain support and votes, while acting out the opposite. What Burnham says on the campaign trail to win votes and what Burnham does when he’s in office are two different thing

And then there’s the doublespeak and/or Globalese that propagandists employ...<<<Read More>>>...

New Hope in the Battle Against Digital Surveillance and Control

 A stricter version of Australia’s social media ban – the first in the world – has been announced in the UK, with device-level surveillance similar to spyware and ID verification for all smartphone users. As governments around the world are following suit, the digital dilemma crystallises into some very practical questions most of us will soon have to face.

Digital ID is on the doorstep, bringing the prospect of unprecedented tracking of our actions and the possibility of being excluded from services we need and like. If you’ve realised that simply giving in and going along will only create more problems – the compliance fallacy – considering the steps to take, both on an individual and collective level, is unavoidable.

And there’s some good news: a new digital rights movement is coming into being.

Refusal is the first and most obvious response. Without personal information from the majority of the population, digital ID systems simply can’t work. But non-compliance is more complex than just saying no and forcing the authorities to back down. Though, following the public outcry, the Government has shelved plans for mandatory digital ID, it’s continuing to introduce digital ID by stealth, working group by group, gradually taking more and more of us into its net. The main examples in the UK are the digitalisation of passport and driving licence applications and the tax system.

Refusing to participate in these systems is fairly straightforward. It involves sticking to paper systems which public bodies have to provide because there are millions of people in the UK who lack access to computers, phone or who don’t have the skills to navigate digital systems. Paper forms and a trip to the Post Office avoid the need to use an online account.

The demand by Companies House that company directors must verify their identity digitally, a process which involves giving a 3D scan of your face – proper biometrics of the kind used in facial recognition – is of a different order since compulsion is involved. It’s a clear breach of the principle of consent, a kind of data version of vaccine passports. But since it’s backed by law, refusal calls for a deeper level of non-compliance. And so the new digital coercion generates a complex and evolving picture as people respond in different ways to a new kind of threat....<<<Read More>>>..

Under-16 social media ban will be used to shut down political dissenters

Just days before he announced his resignation, Keir Starmer announced a plan to ban under-16s in the UK from accessing social media.

The proposed ban will lead to a massive government-controlled surveillance infrastructure. It will be exploited to monitor and control the behaviour and speech of all, including adults. The UK government has form; the proposed ban will be used to shut down political dissenters rather than just restricting underage internet use.

This morning, Sir Keir Starmer announced his resignation as UK Prime Minister. Though his government is not the first to restrict citizens’ speech in Britain, one of his darker legacies is the intensification of Britain’s censorship regime. Indeed, his parting gift, just a week before his resignation, was the announcement of a plan to ban under-16s from accessing social media in Britain. Unless his successor does a U-turn in the coming months, Britain is on course to introduce one of the most far-reaching social media surveillance systems in the world.

Starmer announced his plan to exclude under-16s from social media at a press conference on 15 June. He planned to introduce a comprehensive social media ban for under-16s, a step he argued was necessary to “give kids their childhood back.” “Tech giants had their chance and failed,” he said, “but we’re stepping in to protect children, back parents and set a new normal for future generations.”

Starmer’s fighting words were dripping with benevolence and nobility. But as Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help’.” Government officials have a compelling interest in protecting their own power and enhancing their control over society. So, when they advocate a major intervention in the public sphere and wax lyrical about “saving our children,” it is not wise to just take their word for it....<<<Read More>>>...

Too Young for TikTok, Old Enough to Vote?

 There are few sights more comic than a modern minister pretending to be the stern parent of the nation.

We know the routine. The concerned expression. The voice lowered half an octave. The carefully arranged background of flags, earnest young people and laminated safeguarding jargon. Then comes the announcement. The government is going to protect children online.

At which point every parent in the country is expected to breathe a sigh of relief, put down the gin and thank the Department for Being Sensible on Our Behalf.

This would be comic enough at any time. It is even better when the Government now proposing to supervise teenagers online gives the impression of being unable to supervise itself. Sir Keir Starmer wants to childproof the internet while presiding over a state that cannot produce a defence policy that convinces its own side, let alone our allies or enemies.

Still, never mind the Russian threat. Has anyone thought about Chloe scrolling Instagram?

To be fair, there is a problem. Social media is not exactly a moral health spa. Much of it resembles a Victorian freak show redesigned by behavioural psychologists and funded by advertising executives. It is addictive, vain, cruel, stupid and often deranging. The idea that a 14 year-old girl with a smartphone is simply exercising ‘choice’ while being stalked by an algorithm designed to exploit insecurity is absurd.

So no, this is not a libertarian hymn to TikTok.

The problem is not that politicians worry about the effect of social media on young people. The problem is that they worry about it selectively.

The same political class that increasingly tells us young people must be protected from online manipulation is also very keen to tell us that those same young people are mature enough to vote.

This is where the argument begins to wobble like a drunk on a paddleboard.

Apparently, a teenager may not have the judgement to scroll through Instagram without state supervision, but does have the judgement to help choose the next government.

This is not a principle. It is a convenience....<<<Read More>>>....

Keir Starmer’s Doomed Social Media ‘Ban’

 We’ve been here before. Last December, Australia launched a failed experiment which the UK is now seeking to replicate. Australia purported to ban children from social media, requiring social media platforms to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that there were no under-16’s on their platforms.

Most Australian children are still on social media. Even the eSafety Commissioner concedes that at least 70% of the children are still on there – based on a survey of parents. The true figure is almost certainly higher: no children who circumvented the ban are going to tell their parents. This is unsurprising given the official Government-funded study, used to recommend implementation methods, proposed systems that would literally let over 40% of 10 year-olds through (a finding that the authors occluded in their report). The report was prepared by the UK-based Age Verification Providers Association, an industry body with a direct commercial interest in selling these systems. One imagines the UK Government is receiving similarly dubious advice. And then there are VPNs — allowing children to bypass age verification entirely by appearing to connect from a country without a ban.

From a child safety perspective, the failure of the Australian ban is a good thing. Social media platforms operate based on network effects. They persist because of the community that is there. In ordinary circumstances, this provides an incumbent advantage. But if the Government succeeds in breaking these networks down, then under-16’s are suddenly motivated to go elsewhere.

That ‘elsewhere’ could be a completely unregulated startup app or website with no safety measures whatsoever....<<<Read More>>>...

Food for Thought #1130

 

Starmer announces intention to implement facial recognition and digital ID to access social media

 The UK government, reinforced by Keir Starmer at a press conference today, has announced its intention to ban social media access to under-16s from early next year.

The ban will be enforced using facial recognition software and digital IDs. To enable this, everyone wishing to use social media will be subject to facial recognition and digital IDs.

Aside from the obvious destruction to online privacy and freedom of speech, and the totalitarian control over every aspect of our lives which will ensue, how accurate is the technology that the UK government is imposing on the entire population?

Today, the UK government announced a ban on social media access for all children under the age of 16. Starmer is hoping the regulation will be passed through Parliament before Christmas and the ban enforced in the Spring of 2027.

Described as an “Australia plus” policy, this measure is one of the strictest online crackdowns in the democratic world and goes beyond the limits previously imposed in Australia.

The government plans to use “highly effective” age assurance systems, including age-recognition facial scans and digital IDs, to verify user ages.

We should note that everyone, not just under-16s, will be subjected to facial scans and digital IDs – “to protect children online” is a ruse to implement control over the entire population using whatever digital technology they have at their disposal.

Apart from ending online privacy and aiming for complete control over the information we can share and have access to, their digital tools are not as fail-safe as they like to pretend....<<<Read More>>>...

Starmer to Ban Under-16s From 10 Social Media Apps, Including X, but not Bluesky

 This is purely and simply a silly dictator attempting to prevent the next generation of Brits from waking up and being allowed to think for themselves. Its nothing to do with child safety ... 

 +++++++++++++++++++++

Sir Keir Starmer is set to announce sweeping reforms tomorrow banning under-16s from 10 major social media platforms, including X, but not the Left-wing platform Bluesky. In addition, he will introduce daily curfews for 16 and 17 year-olds, going further than Australia’s restrictions. The Times has the story:

Teenagers will be banned from certain social media platforms and have their daily usage curbed under sweeping reforms to be announced by Sir Keir Starmer on Sunday.

The ban will go further than the one imposed by Australia in December by targeting technology deemed harmful to children, including chatbots and certain features on gaming apps.

Under-16s in Australia have been banned from using ten platforms: TikTok, Instagram, Threads, Facebook, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Twitch and Kick. It is understood that the UK will follow suit by raising the minimum age on social media to 16, from the average of 13, for the same ten sites.

Curfews for older teenagers will be introduced. Daily social media use will be restricted for 16 and 17 year-olds in a move designed to curb unhealthy late-night scrolling habits.

A Government source said: “Keir has been clear we need a game-changer to keep our children — and future generations — safe online.”....<<<Read More>>>....

Starmer issues ultimatum to technology companies to implement client-side scanning; this is the end of online privacy

 Starmer has issued a three-month ultimatum for major technology firms to implement client-side scanning; so that all content on all digital devices sold or used in the UK can be scanned using a dystopian combination of age verification and content scanning.

Client-side scanning is a surveillance technique that analyses content on a user’s device before encryption. And, if the Government succeeds, it marks the end of online privacy – for everyone.

Signal has issued a statement on the UK government’s demand. “This proposal will not safeguard children. It endangers us all,” Signal says.

Age verification is spreading worldwide. It is a Trojan horse for limiting access to content that they do not wish the public to see. We need to look no further than what the UK government is doing worldwide under the pretence of keeping children safe online.

In July 2025, provisions in the Online Safety Act 2023 (“OSA”) were enacted, introducing age verification checks for online content. Using these new rules, just a week after they were implemented, a variety of content unrelated to children’s safety was already being censored.

“British people are being forced by the state to verify their age and hand over personal information to view political news about their own country. It is the sort of thing for which British diplomats would castigate third-world or tyrannical governments, but there seems to be little awareness of the danger of this law among our own governing class,” The Critic said in the week after the new rules began....<<<Read More>>>...

Starmer Poised to Ban Under-16s From Social Media in ‘Australian-Plus’ Crackdown

 Sir Keir Starmer is preparing to announce a ban on under 16s using social media in the next 10 days.

The Prime Minister has been considering what action to take after a three-month consultation on an Australian-style social ban on children under 16.

There is growing speculation that Sir Keir will opt for a so-called “Australian-plus” model with a ban on a wider range of sites combined with restrictions on “addictive” features and tougher age checks to prevent children circumventing the rules.

Sir Keir is said to be carving out policies to provide him with a “legacy” as he faces the threat of a leadership challenge from Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor who is favourite to secure a return to Parliament in the Makerfield by-election in less than two weeks’ time.

However, the children’s commissioner has proposed that any social media ban should be extended to 16- and 17-year-olds

Dame Rachel de Souza has said that any ban must apply “equally to all children” up to 18.

She also urged Sir Keir Starmer to draw up a list of features that tech firms would be forced to ban because they encourage children to stay online, put them at risk of seeing harmful content or enable them to be contacted by strangers.

The Prime Minister is expected to announce the first stage of the crackdown on Monday with tech companies being forced to install software that makes it impossible for children to take or share nude images.

If businesses including Google and Apple fail to comply within three months, Sir Keir will say legislation will be introduced that would mean the companies could face fines, regulations on phone sales to children or criminal sanctions....<<<Read More>>>....

The Anti-Privacy Serpent Devouring Our Freedoms

Do you ever hear a voice, hissing and persuasive like the snake which allegedly talked Eve into the Fall of Man, saying things like: “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear. It’s progress – part of modern life. Go on, give us your personal information. Oh, and your fingerprints. And an iris scan. You might as well. In any case, it’s inevitable. There’s nothing you can do.”

This is the voice of anti-privacy, the means by which governments, corporations and tech platforms persuade us to hand over levels of personal information unthinkable until very recently. It’s a voice that’s got louder and more insistent as those in control of our data have realised that digitalisation opens the door to previously undreamed-of levels of money and power.

Maybe, like me, you’ve become somewhat immune to that voice and hear both desperation and the desire to dominate in its tones. You’ve already had worrying glimpses of the uses to which your personal information could be put and you can see how, collected en masse and harnessed to new state powers, public data could create a system of control never before seen on earth. At the same time, you hear the whisperings of the anti-privacy voice around you as your fellow citizens repeat its casuistic deceptions. Sometimes it sounds like Mephistopheles offering a deal: “If you supply Google with data, we’ll give you a free email… if you get a loyalty card, you can pay ‘member’s prices’… if you install a smart meter, we might reduce your energy bills.”

The sibilant voice of anti-privacy masks the curious inversion that is taking place. Since the earliest days of the internet, we’ve been told to protect our data from bad actors such as financial scammers, hackers, identity thieves and geopolitical baddies. We are repeatedly warned against giving personal information unless we are absolutely sure who will be using it and how. We’ve been urged to abide by GDPR, put privacy policies on our websites and use tools such as Virtual Private Networks to encrypt our data. Apple, my laptop provider of choice since the early 2000s, has made privacy central to its brand, with protections built into its operating systems and a policy of not selling data to third parties.

Yet suddenly we’re being told we must hand over personal information to organisations linked to networks of unknown parties. There’s talk of restrictions on VPNs to stop people from getting round the identity checks necessary for a ban on social media for children. Such restrictions would only apply to ordinary citizens: since most organisations use VPNs, it would be privacy as usual for government bodies. This fact makes the terms of the new deal crystal clear: what’s ours is theirs and what’s theirs remains their own....<<<Read More>>>...

EU Prepares to Ban Social Media for Children

 France is set to be the first EU country to follow Australia, which has a minimum age of 16, in outlawing the technology for children in September. It plans to stop children under 15 using the services.

Brussels could now propose legislation for an EU-wide ban sooner than that, after a panel of experts finishes deliberating online child safety, von der Leyen said.

“I believe we must consider a social media delay,” the European Commission President said at a conference in Copenhagen.

“Depending on the results, we could come up with a legal proposal this summer,” she said on Tuesday.

She praised Australia for its ban and added: “We are witnessing the lightning speed at which technology is advancing – and how it penetrates every corner of childhood and adolescence.

“Childhood and early adolescence are formative years, and I believe we should give our children more time to become resilient in this vulnerable phase.”

An EU-wide ban would risk angering Donald Trump, who already views EU regulation of US tech giants as disproportionate, protectionist and an attack on free speech.

The President has threatened to hit the EU with tariffs while Washington is lobbying Brussels and London to water down its tech regulation.

Spain, Germany, Ireland, Denmark and Greece are considering their own versions of a ban pioneered by Australia last December....<<<Read More>>>...

Parents Decide Act requires Apple, Google to verify age of every device user

 New bill mandates age verification for all device users.

Critics warn it creates a digital national ID system.

The law would make Apple and Google age brokers for apps.

Data protection rules are vague and deferred to the FTC.

The measure could end online anonymity for all Americans.

A new congressional bill, packaged as a child safety initiative, would require every American setting up a phone, computer, or tablet to verify their age with Apple or Google, creating what critics warn is a backdoor national identification system for the digital age. The Parents Decide Act (H.R. 8250), introduced by Representative Josh Gottheimer and Elise Stefanik on April 13, mandates that operating system providers collect and confirm the birth date of any user during device setup, with no opt-out for adults. While proponents argue this gives parents control, the legislation’s fine print builds a universal age-verification layer that could reshape online anonymity and consolidate surveillance power with two tech giants.

Gottheimer announced the bill at a Ridgewood, New Jersey, news conference on April 2, standing with local advocates. “With each passing day, the internet is becoming more and more treacherous for our kids,” Gottheimer said. He criticized the current system where “children are able to bypass age requirements by entering a different birthday and accessing apps without any real verification. Kids can bypass age requirements by simply typing in a different birthday. That’s it. That’s the system.” ...<<<Read More>>>...

Europe Wants to Keep Children Off Social Media: What’s It Really About?

 Greece has become the latest European country to propose a legal minimum age for social media, with Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis saying children under 15 should be barred from accessing the platforms from January 1, 2027. Austria has announced plans for a ban on under-14s, while France has already tried to impose a “digital majority” for under-15s. Australia has gone furthest in practice, presenting itself as the international model after platforms restricted access to 4.7 million underage accounts.

The policy language across these countries is remarkably similar. Governments say they are protecting children from addictive products, sleep disruption and psychological harm. The operational reality is more complicated. Australia’s experience suggests that these measures do not produce a clean ban so much as a large-scale age-verification and enforcement system, one that still leaves obvious routes around the rules while expanding the amount of monitoring and identity checking built into ordinary online life....<<<Read More>>>...

Online “child safety” is a ruse to enable data collection and surveillance of the entire population

 Governments are using child safety as an excuse to build a surveillance state, pushing for enhanced surveillance and data collection over digital communication for everyone, both children and adults.

These days, we are seeing a strong push for enhanced government surveillance over digital communication, from Australia and the United Kingdom to Ireland, Germany and Spain, whether by imposing a universal digital identification requirement for accessing social media, or spying on citizens’ private chats.

The leading reason being offered for enhanced surveillance and data collection is the protection of children from online harms, such as pornography and social media addiction. But given recent experiences of shameless government overreach rationalised by “solidarity” and protection from disease, any move by government to claim enhanced powers of surveillance over our personal data and communications should be viewed with suspicion.

Sometimes governments leverage citizens’ deepest fears and most noble aspirations to convince them to expand State prerogatives at the expense of personal liberties. This is not a hypothesis, but a historical reality, evidenced in a vivid way by the UK’s psych-op operation to guilt citizens into taking the shot, and the UK’s Health Secretary boasting in private correspondence that announcing a new, more virulent variant of Covid would “frighten the pants off everyone.”...<<<<Read More>>>...

Food for Thought #932

 

The Social Media Ban for Under-16s Illuminates Our Erroneous Thinking About Children

 Is a potential social media ban for the under-16s the ultimate nanny state interference, the beginning of a full-blown censorship state, or a sensible decision to protect tech-addled children? It is probably all of the above. More uncomfortably, it throws much needed light on society’s misunderstanding about what it is to be a child, and even worse, parental neglect on a scale no-one is really prepared to admit.

The contemporary approach to children seems to be based on the idea that children are adults in small bodies. This has manifested in all sorts of monstrous ways. The most egregious is when police and social workers involved in the rape gangs suggested that children were able to ‘give consent’ to sexual activity. Not far behind is the foundational idea in the transgender ideology, that the thoughts of children concerning their sex are to be believed and acted upon. Gillick competency within medicine is the idea that certain children can drive their own treatment if they demonstrate sufficient understanding. Plans are afoot to let 16 year-olds vote in General Elections as they already can in local elections in Wales and Scotland. The age of criminal responsibility is 10.

These are extreme examples but the adultification of children is widespread and pernicious. At many schools, children are renamed students or learners. In medical and social work they even have their own acronym: CYP (children and young people). While ‘child-centred’ education and social work sounds great, it creates a mindset whereby children are deemed the best judges of what is best for them....<<<Read More>>>...

Starmer Poised to Ban Under-16s From Social Media

 Sir Keir Starmer is ready to impose a social media ban on under-16s after dropping his opposition to Australia-style restrictions backed by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch. The Telegraph has the story.

The Prime Minister had previously expressed scepticism about copying Australian age restrictions on social media platforms after warnings that a ban could push teenagers on to less-regulated sites.

But he has now dropped his opposition to the proposal and is open to legislation that would force the social media companies to bar under-16s from their platforms.

On Thursday, Sir Keir said: “We need to better protect children from social media. We’re looking at what’s happening in Australia, but all options are on the table in relation to what further protections we can put in place, whether that’s under-16s on social media, all options on the table.”

No 10 also signalled that the Prime Minister would not stand in the way of a Conservative amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, to be voted on next week, that would bring in an Australian-style ban.

One policy expert close to No 10 said: “This has clearly become a live issue for No 10. If you had a free vote tomorrow 70% of MPs would vote yes. It would be very popular with the public.”

Last weekend Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, said that the Tories would block under-16s from social media if the party wins the next election.

Her calls were backed by Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, who has been tipped to challenge Sir Keir for the Labour leadership.

Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, said he was “in favour of action” over a potential ban on social media for under-16s. He said social media had been “unleashed without properly understanding the consequences”.

Anthony Albanese, the Australian Prime Minister, introduced the world-first law last year which banned young people from platforms such as Facebook, X, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok.

If the Tory amendment is passed in the House of Lords next week, it will go to the House of Commons for a vote.

Smartphone Free Childhood, a parenting campaign group, said it had gathered 100,000 letters to MPs urging them to back the ban.

The change in approach is reflected in a series of government appointments of people who support further restrictions on social media....<<<Read More>>>....

Protecting children online is a pretext for total digital surveillance

Protecting kids is a weak pretext for total digital surveillance. What’s worse, the EU’s monitoring exempted its own politicians from scrutiny. Their privacy matters, but not yours.

Last month, we lamented California’s Frontier AI Act of 2025. The Act favours compliance over risk management, while shielding bureaucrats and lawmakers from responsibility. Mostly, it imposes top-down regulatory norms, instead of letting civil society and industry experts experiment and develop ethical standards from the bottom up.

Perhaps we could dismiss the Act as just another example of California’s interventionist penchant. But some American politicians and regulators are already calling for the Act to be a “template for harmonising federal and state oversight.” The other source for that template would be the European Union (“EU”), so it’s worth keeping an eye on the regulations spewed out of Brussels.

The EU is already way ahead of California in imposing troubling, top-down regulation. Indeed, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act of 2024 follows the EU’s overall precautionary principle. As the EU Parliament’s internal think tank explains, “the precautionary principle enables decision-makers to adopt precautionary measures when scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain and the stakes are high.”

The precautionary principle gives immense power to the EU when it comes to regulating in the face of uncertainty – rather than allowing for experimentation with the guardrails of fines and tort law (as in the US). It stifles ethical learning and innovation. Because of the precautionary principle and associated regulation, the EU economy suffers from greater market concentration, higher regulatory compliance costs and diminished innovation – compared to an environment that allows for experimentation and sensible risk management. It is small wonder that only four of the world’s top 50 tech companies are European....<<<Read More>>>...

British Parliament rejects call to roll back Online Safety Act

 The British Parliament debated repealing the Online Safety Act (OSA) after a 160,000-signature petition but rejected calls to roll it back, instead advocating for even stricter controls on VPNs, age verification and AI chatbots.

Critics argue the OSA, designed to protect children from harmful content, has become a broad censorship tool, suppressing lawful political speech and forcing the closure of small online forums due to heavy compliance burdens.

In response to the OSA, VPN usage in the U.K. surged by 700%, leading some MPs to propose regulating the privacy tools themselves as a way to enforce the Act's restrictions.

The parliamentary debate revealed significant concern that the law is eroding privacy and free speech, with critics drawing parallels to historical censorship and warning it sets a dangerous global precedent for digital control under the guise of safety.

Despite acknowledging problems, the government is moving to expand the OSA's scope, targeting encrypted messaging and AI, while opposition from the public and international figures like U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance highlights a growing divide over digital freedoms.

The British Parliament recently debated the repeal of its controversial Online Safety Act (OSA), responding to a public petition that garnered over 160,000 signatures. Yet rather than addressing concerns over government overreach, Members of Parliament (MPs) doubled down on calls for stricter internet controls like expanding age verification, cracking down on virtual private network (VPN) usage and demanding artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots be policed like digital trespassers.

The debate was held in a sparsely attended Westminster Hall on Monday, Dec. 15. It revealed a widening chasm between public demands for digital freedom and political insistence on tighter regulation – raising alarms about censorship, surveillance, and the erosion of privacy in one of the world’s oldest democracies.

The OSA, enacted to shield children from harmful content such as pornography and violent extremism, has instead morphed into a sprawling censorship apparatus, forcing lawful political discussions and independent forums offline while empowering tech giants to act as arbiters of truth. Civil liberties groups warn that the law has effectively "childproofed" the internet for adults, requiring invasive age checks just to access basic content.

VPN usage surged by 700% in the UK following the OSA's implementation, as citizens scrambled to bypass restrictions. This prompted MPs like Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) and Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) to suggest regulating the privacy tools themselves.

Critics argue the OSA's vague language invites overzealous enforcement. Small forums, including fan communities and local message boards, have shuttered under the weight of compliance burdens, with one administrator of a message board for the soccer club Sunderland AFC nearly closing shop after struggling to navigate the British Office of Communications' (Ofcom) labyrinthine guidelines....<<<Read More>>>...