British Online Safety Act Strips Citizens of Online Freedoms

The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act has caused a seismic shift in the digital realm. The paradox is that it has simultaneously imposed restrictions on the very freedoms it claimed to protect. Now, every day, thousands of comments flood social media, with users condemning London for unprecedented violations of their rights.

The violations are extraordinary—just like the law itself. No other country in Europe has enacted such draconian measures, nor has any nation worldwide.

Total censorship, access to personal data, and the abolition of privacy in correspondence—these are now realities, and with these changes, Britain’s already low level of public trust risks reaching new depths.

Britons Distrust Their Authorities, and Authorities Distrust Britons

The new Online Safety Act seems straight out of Orwell’s dystopian visions, now woven into the fabric of everyday British life. Nearly a week into its enactment, it has left no one indifferent. Observers are divided: some accuse the government of facilitating crime, others of conducting mass illegal surveillance. In any case, the concepts of internet freedom, personal data protection, and the privacy of correspondence have all but vanished into the Thames.

Now, internet companies are required to submit regular reports on hundreds of parameters that determine whether content is harmful to minors. Non-compliance results in multimillion-pound fines and platform bans. Social networks, messaging services, and platforms must verify user age, with constant scanning not only of public posts and feeds but also of private messages and conversations— all in the name of protecting the younger generation.

Maria Zakharova, Official Spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry:

“As is customary in the Anglo-Saxon world, behind the veneer of noble phrases about protecting ‘subjects,’ lurks a grim, monstrous reality: British authorities are gaining a tool for total control over every online activity of the inhabitants of the Foggy Albion. The dawn of a more opaque Britain.”

The criteria for what constitutes “dangerous content” are increasingly vague. Almost anything can fall under this category. Already, users have flagged the first materials blocked: reports on protests, the Gaza war, weapons supplies to Kiev, criticism of authorities and international institutions, certain Wikipedia articles, and videos on YouTube. Access to these materials is restricted unless users verify their identity.

Verification involves photographing oneself alongside a passport, driver’s license, or bank card—essentially providing personal data to third-party services. Consequently, VPN downloads have surged by 1800% in recent days. Yet, using a VPN to bypass verification remains prohibited. The problem is, such individuals are difficult to identify, leading authorities to attempt enforcement through appeals.

Peter Kyle, UK Minister for Digital Affairs:

"To those trying to use VPN to circumvent the law, I say directly: age verification is what protects children—our children, in this country. Let’s not try to undermine the system. Verify your age. Let’s make the internet safer for children and for all of us. Isn’t that what we should be striving for?"

The line of thought is intriguing: the law demands users confirm their age to access allegedly dangerous content. This is the core premise. Minors will fail verification, but why would adults?

The minister is addressing adults, urging them not to evade the law and to provide their personal data. The absurdity of the situation has inspired a typical British joke: in the UK, voting is allowed from age 16, but watching adult content is restricted to those aged 18.

Sorry, but British political passions can sometimes rival the chaos of their laws. The Online Safety Act, cloaked in seemingly benevolent intentions, has a profound impact on the internet space. Yet, it remains unclear whether these measures affect only subjects or the entire world.

Alina Zhestovskaya, Political Technologist and Member of the Russian Association of Political Consultants:

"Undoubtedly, there’s an additional nuance from an IT perspective. They plan to control American services, but what happens if—how does this work legally—to monitor dialogues between British citizens and foreigners, say, Americans, Germans, or French? If they exchange information, won’t that infringe upon the legal right to privacy of citizens from other states?"

Adding to the sharpness, Hungarian sociologist Karl Mannheim once defined youth as a potential ready for any endeavor. I fear that in Britain’s digital landscape, such a definition might now be misunderstood. And he was a scholar who lived and worked in the UK for over ten years. But that was before Orwellian times.