You can read Part 1: From Regulator to Censor: The Rise of Ofcom, here
In July, barely half a day after Ofcom’s new online safety rules kicked in, Twitter/X users got a chilling preview of what life under Britain’s online regulator could look like: footage of protests against illegal immigration was suddenly censored.
“Due to local laws, we are temporarily restricting access to this content until X estimates your age,” read the message:
“We’re not censors,” Ofcom quickly insisted. Starmer, in one of his awkward appearances being asked about free speech in the UK alongside Donald Trump, echoed the claim: “We’re not censoring anyone.”
But who needs to censor inconvenient content directly if you can make platforms do it for you – under the provisions of the Online “Safety” Act?
The Online Safety Act has been long in the making. It dates back to 2017, when the government began drafting legislation with the stated aim of making the UK “the safest place in the world to be online.”
Of course, the Act has always been promoted as about protecting children. But most us have kids, or grandkids – and recognise that purported child safety cannot be a blank cheque for policies that erode free speech, privacy, and security for all. And boy, do they.
Passed in October 2023 and fully implemented in July 2025, the Act gives Ofcom sweeping new powers – and we’re only just seeing how they’re being used.
The Powers of the Act
The Online Safety Act’s reach is vast. It imposes different obligations on internet services depending on what content they host, how many users they have, and which “category” Ofcom assigns them.
It also creates new offences based on “illegal content,” requiring companies to take “appropriate safety measures” against a list of “priority offences” – including “hate crimes” such as “stirring up hatred on the basis of religion or sexual orientation.”
Fines for non-compliance are eye-watering: up to £18 million or 10% of global turnover, pushing platforms to self-censor.
Under section 179, social media users can face up to 51 weeks in prison for “false communications” that cause “non-trivial psychological harm” – a phrase left undefined.
Many platforms are now required to impose age assurance checks, demanding facial scans, credit card verification or photo ID.
The government’s Canute-like bid to make the internet “free from harm” has spawned a labyrinth of Ofcom guidance: six volumes so far, one 610 pages long. Providers must somehow work out what applies to them and achieve compliance.
The First Casualties
By February, the Free Speech Union reported nearly 300 people charged with new “speech crimes” such as spreading “fake news.”
One, Dimitrie Stoica, was jailed for three months for claiming on TikTok he was “running for his life” from rioters in Derby. He said it was a joke but was fined £154 under the Act.
Together and others warned the Act would crush small online communities unable to meet the same compliance standards as Big Tech.
When the “illegal harms” duties came into force in March, the The Hamster Forum – a pet discussion website – was among forced to simply shut down.
“While this forum is perfectly safe with excellent software etc, there are now new legal requirements to comply with,” wrote Hamster Forum administrator Maz.
“I am just unable to achieve the compliancy required for this Act. I would probably need a lawyer and team of experts to be able to fully comply with everything. Additionally I would need to install a legally acceptable method of age verification – I was quoted £200 a month for that. That just isn’t doable.”
With Ofcom forcing small UK operators out of business, the beneficiaries of course are the US Big Tech giants from which many of Ofcom’s new hires are drawn.
Workarounds And Resistance
Within days of the child safety rules taking effect in July, VPN use surged. Proton reported an 1,800% rise in UK sign-ups and NordVPN 1,000% – signs that adults want privacy and children are bypassing restrictions.
Wikipedia, having lost a legal challenge over the Act, has reportedly considered capping UK visitor numbers to avoid “category one” status (defined as 7 million users).
Meanwhile, US-based Gab, 4chan, and Kiwi Farms have been served with Ofcom violation notices and threatened with multi-million-pound fines – cases that may soon land in US courts.
A Clash of Laws and Cultures
The issue exposes a deep divide between legal systems. The UK claims Ofcom can act against any company “with relevant links to the UK,” while Americans see that as a violation of First Amendment protections.
Critics across the political spectrum – civil rights groups, journalists and free speech advocates – call the Act a “censor’s charter” that achieves little in reducing harm.
Mission Creep
Despite all this, and in keeping with the Starmer government’s authoritarian bent, it now plans to expand the Act, around “self-harm” content. This change can be rushed through Parliament via statutory instrument – in other words, at the stroke of a minister’s pen.
That in itself is a warning: once powers like these exist, they can easily be extended to… well, just about anything.
The thoroughly dubious censorship organisation Center for Countering Digital Hate (founded by none other than Morgan McSweeney!) wasted no time in lobbying government about giving Ofcom the power to impose “emergency measures” of online censorship during “crises.”
Ofcom’s Expanding Empire
Former technology minister Peter Kyle has voiced enthusiasm for compulsory age verification – something Australia is currently trying to impose – edging us closer to requiring state permission to use the internet.
Meanwhile, Ofcom chief executive Melanie Dawes (pictured above) has called 2025 “a pivotal year in creating a safer life online.” Ofcom is already seeking more power, proposing “Additional Safety Measures” that could impose compliance requirements costly and onerous enough to drive small platforms offline altogether, and make livestreaming of certain events – say protests on certain issues – difficult if not impossible.
If alarm bells weren’t already ringing, they should be now.
What’s Next
In Part 3, coming soon, we’ll look in detail at these proposed Additional Safety Measures of Ofcom’s – how they aim to “stop harms at source” and “stop illegal content going viral,” effectively ensuring certain ideas never reach the public.
Citizen journalists, podcasters, YouTubers, small broadcasters, and livestreamers: take note.
Together is fighting every day for freedom from censorship, compulsory digital ID and other repressive Government measures.
