It will scan everything because their schedule is that any communication may be kiddie porn. The whole point of this thing is to scan any messages they can't get to
I would guess that the app would have to determine if it's legal through a mix of AI and/or humans And if so, the person it's being sent to will have to be a verified adult? Probably will have to consent to see it, since the law is described as being to prevent e-flashing.
Most people didn't vote Labour at the last general election. There was also little mention of the authoritarian policies the Labour government has followed since gaining power in its manifesto or electoral campaigning so even people who did vote Labour didn't necessarily think they were voting for a lot of this stuff.
Our electoral and government system is grossly unrepresentative and sometimes results in parties that lack anything close to majority popular support gaining near absolute power and being able to push through whatever they want with few checks or balances for five years afterwards. Let's not diminish how serious these problems are with casually dismissive "we voted for this" comments.
There was also little mention of the authoritarian policies the Labour government has followed since gaining power in its manifesto or electoral campaigning so even people who did vote Labour didn't necessarily think they were voting for a lot of this stuff.
I didn't vote for them. I remembered the ID database and the Digital Economy Act (forced through by Peter Mandleson as the last act before Brown called a GE) last time they were in government. I also remembered Jacqui Smith.
How many of the current Labour leadership who are setting policy in government were even MPs before 2010 or involved in setting the party's policies at that time? How many people who can vote today are old enough to be aware of anything that last Labour government did? You can't just say a government with the same colour of rosette did something a bit authoritarian many years ago and so people voting for candidates with that colour of rosette today are supporting removing the right to a jury trial or installing mandatory spyware on everyone's devices that would fundamentally undermine security and privacy for the whole country. It's unclear exactly how far the current government will really try to go with all of this but given their track record and open advocacy of severely authoritarian policies so far I don't think they'll get much benefit of the doubt from most people who care about these issues.
Whenever I read "OfCom", my brain reads it in a German accent. No concious decision led to that, it's just so scarily accurate that my brain slipped into it.
I think Trump wants to make himself and his family even richer. Starmer is part of the international Ne Lib cabal that just wants to control everybody and everything.
On stuff like this? Demonstrably he's not. He's worse of course in most other ways, but I don't see him suggesting the government should pre-approve your content.
The law did indeed have cross party support with some very weak and mild opposition and attempts to amend bits of it here and there from a handful of Libertarian Conservatives and Lib Dems and a few people like Baroness Fox, David Davis etc
And remember, Labour wanted this legislation to be worse than it was voted for and agreed to be law at the time. May have been a Tory policy, but Labour wanted it worse.
And now Labour are in power, this amendment came in October 2025
I followed the passage through Parliament. This is true but also all political parties supported the law. Labour tabs led amendments that strengthened the law at every opportunity.
FYI - snapchat is not encrypted. If she sends you her nudes on snapchat she’s sharing it with Mark Zuckerberg and every tech specialist at Meta with an interest in porn.
FYIv2 - Whatsapp is not using quantum safe encrypted - but Meta is certainly saving the data until quantum computers are here. If she sends you her nudes on whatsapp she’s sharing it with Mark Zuckerberg and every tech specialist at Meta with an interest in porn
This has "rushed poorly thought through legislation in response to current panic" written all over it.
Which never ends well.
Our civil service have a long and storied history of "helping" our governments put together terrible legislation around anything to do with tech and I have exactly zero confidence that what they are doing here will be fit for purpose (any purpose at all TBH)
The drones at Ofcom will rush headlong into trying to enforce ridiculous rules, with absolutely no regard for how these systems actually work in practice, or what the outcomes are. They will parrot out their approved lines about protecting people, but give absolutely no regard for potential harm that arises from their action.
I wonder how long it is before we see the first wrongfully accused person having to fight to clear their name due to some over-zealous AI bot misinterpreting something.
I wonder how long it is before we see the first wrongfully accused person having to fight to clear their name due to some over-zealous AI bot misinterpreting something.
A tangential worry I have is people i.e. decision makers simply not thinking at all around AI outputs, or outsourcing the thinking to it. Just blindly trusting the marketing that it's "100% accurate."
The potential for people to fight a losing uphill battle that maybe the technology is wrong, whilst everyone shrugs and repeat that ChatGPT says no, so it's a no, is concerning.
YouTube commentary channels have spoken of at least one incident where a person had to convince security and police that the AI was wrong and they have the wrong person.
Fun fact about, back in 2023 when the Online Safety Act was being written, it required all companies to have their encryption have a backdoor meaning the government can read any encrypted message if they request it.
Companies like Apple released huge documents as to why this is such a bad idea, what it means to privacy and hacking, and they said they would take iMessage in the UK instead of complying (good on Apple here). The backlash was so much that the gov removed it from the bill.
So I am REALLY HOPING Apple and other privacy companies will send their challenges and go through with their plan of blocking UK access to certain features instead of complying.
It’s a sad state we find ourselves in hoping that a semi-monopoly (alongside Android/Google) will stand on the right side. At this point the cause feels lost. Privacy will be forgotten to history. Get your face scans ready because this will be the first of many amendments making the already bad OSA even worse for all.
I know a retina consultant and he was telling me how with AI, you tell a lot about a person with a retina scan. In the same way we easily accept car reg plates being scanned, our eyes will be next whenever we enter the public domain.
Sadly the reporting on this wasn’t quite as accurate as what happened. There was a last minute big intervention from Apple, WhatsApp, Signal and civil liberties groups.
In the end all that was won was an amendment that an independent person has to write a report on the use of the powers that Ofcom has to asses before they can use them.
This is part of section 121 the ‘spy clause’ in the bill.
Up until now Ofcom haven’t really wanted to use the powers but they are coming under heavy pressure to do so from parliamentarians and charities like the NSPCC and IWF etc and the safety campaigners
Didn’t you know the OSA ran an opinion poll of less than 0.5% of the population that they chose and 70% of them agreed with everything they did so therefore it’s fine /s
Funnily enough, when you get into the weeds with that poll you find that they didn’t ask people if they’d be OK with the logical outcome of implementing the OSA, which is handing over PII to third party sites with dubious data security, having your communications snooped on etc. They asked if children should be able to access harmful material online, which is a very different question and obviously most sane people are going to say no to that. They’ve then spun the latter as a response to the former. It’s insidious and it’s misleading.
Tories and Labour had it in their 2019 election manifestos.
The Tories: We will legislate to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online – protecting children from online abuse and harms, protecting the most vulnerable from accessing harmful content, and ensuring there is no safe space for terrorists to hide online – but at the same time defending freedom of expression and in particular recognising and defending the invaluable role of a free press
Labour: We will enforce a legal duty of care to protect our children online, impose fines on companies that fail on online abuse and empower the public with a Charter of Digital Rights.
This is not new legislation the OSA allows the Secretary of State the power to add categories that platforms need to monitor/prevent.
Nowhere in the amendments made in October 2025, does it mention the pre-empetive scanning of digital communications.
The Secretary of State makes these Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by section 222(3) of the Online Safety Act 2023(1).
The Secretary of State considers it appropriate to add to Schedule 7(2) to that Act the offences set out in regulation 2(2) and 2(3) on the ground set out in section 222(4) of that Act.
In accordance with section 225(1)(k) of that Act, a draft of these Regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
Citation, commencement and extent
1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
(2) These Regulations come into force on the 21st day after the day on which they are made.
(3) These Regulations extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Amendment of Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023
2.—(1) Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 (priority offences) is amended in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3).
(2) After paragraph 2 insert—
Encouraging or assisting serious self-harm
2A. An offence under section 184 of this Act (encouraging or assisting serious self-harm).”.
(3) For paragraph 28A substitute—
“28A. An offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003(3)—
(a)section 66A (sending etc photograph or film of genitals)(4);
(b)section 66B (sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film)(5).”.
You know it’s a fucking problem when only Reform UK has said they’d scrap or repeal the OSA… Cos we’ve gone to protecting kids to full surveillance state, even at th height of mass casualty terrorist attacks the public said no and now they’ve just gone and done it, no consultation, no fucking anything.
Let’s scan for Nudes, then words, then phrases, then we’ll send the police round to their home and throw them into a prison cell that we don’t put sexual predators because they’re all on suspended sentenced outside prison, but that phrase you sent, that’s 3 years prison, no jury trial, no one can hear your appeals for years.
They talked about it more than Reform did though. And Farage was in favour of it when asked at first, until he saw the massive public backlash to the policy at which point he voiced against it
Exactly my gripe, and I don't believe reforms abilities to do much based on energy policy, but I cannot support this overreach and I fear I'll have to vote for them.
If reform are against it then I'm for it. Reform is the party of the pedos, all them Tommy Robinson and that lot they're all nonces and I reckon the new law is going to thwart them going after preteen girls and thats why they're against it. They'll keep the scanning just let the kiddie porn through.
You have to be grateful for Labour in a way. Their Orwellian crusade against the Internet will almost certainly drive the development of new technologies and methods of circumventing their pitiful attempt at control.
Yeah, but the hate has been brought to bear now. So Labour really poisoned an already toxic well. Any new technologies and the support of it would be militant, all because of Labour being so obsessed nannying folks with their insufferable morals
The term ‘violence against women and girls’ refers to acts of violence or abuse that we know disproportionately affect women and girls. These crimes include - and are not limited to - rape, sexual violence, domestic abuse, stalking, ‘honour’-based abuse including forced marriage, ‘revenge porn’, and the harms associated with sex work and prostitution.
Men who are victims of these crimes are counted in the 'violence against women and girls' statistics. Whilst I'm not saying dick pics lead to violence, partner violence between gay men certainly contributes to violence against women and girls.
Be angry at the government for its definition if you want, but at least be informed.
How do we know just how disproportionate it is if it’s framed that way seemingly eternally? I would encourage you to check out r/ thetinmen for a decent run down of where these stats are doing a lot of work rhetorically and not for everyone’s benefit.
I’ve already reported Microsoft to the police for including the aubergine emoji and the water splash emoji within their software. If those aren’t tools to send explicit messages then this law just doesn’t go far enough.
Aubergine-peach made my kids gay! It's a disgrace. Something must be done!
I have also written to the Unicode Consortium about the inclusion of "box drawing characters"... did you know you can produce swastikas with them? IDK what the world is coming to, I really don't.
It's like 1993 all over again and Dave showing me 80085 on his fancy Casio FX-451M. DISGUSTING!
It's seen as being quite aggressive by a lot of women and is generally intended to degrade them. It's probably worse than public flashing as it can happen wherever the person is (such as the workplace or at home).
If people can apply a flag saying "this person can send me intimate pictures/ videos", and there are tools made available to easily report to the police when things are sent inappropriately. Some folk in long distance relationships share naughty pictures and video with very enthusiastic consent from both sides, I don't see any reason for that to be curtailed so long as both have actively marked as providing consent for a given time period (so you can't retrospectively revoke it, but can withdraw it going forward).
Nope, it would just package up the messages with meta data in a format which could be readily forwarded to the police if someone sends something not ok. If the consent tag is applied it would be marked as such in the meta data indicating the context of the interaction.
it was always going to happen, just look at EU chat control, same thing, only that we've already given them the OSA and did nothing about it and now they'll take it for a mile. always ridiculous to see people allow the gov to nanny them/their children etc and now you'll be beat into submission into it as well.
Trying to lock down the internet is a tough ask, North Korea and Turkmenistan decided they couldn't be arsed trying and just don't allow regular citizens to access the internet at all. North Korea has a highly skilled cybercrime sector, I think if there was a way to truly lock down the internet to their satisfaction they would have found it.
The bigger issue is the UK Government try to ban this stuff whilst still using US-based platforms like meta and X. They’re focused on ‘online harms’ but ignore the wider social harms caused by these digital platforms.
[They should also whack Microsoft for closing Skype and forcing people onto ‘Teams’ /s]
If you want to play the "social harms' game then you'd be banning all algorithmic infinite scroll social networks including sites like Reddit. Anything less and you're just admitting that the issue isn't social harms its that you don't like a discussion forum that adheres to US principles of free speech instead of European censorship.
Holy shit Labour are really clamping down on the internet aren't they.
Sometimes I wonder how much better the world would be if Labour did clamp down on the internet in the way people think they are... then maybe we would get so much nonsense like this article (and headline), from a random clickbait-farming 'lobby' group.
Interesting how this turned out… Those of us who warned about this from the start were ridiculed, downvoted, and dismissed as conspiracy theorists. I assume the same voices will now be just as vocal in admitting how wrong they were.
Starmer is destroying Labour's support for generations. If it wasn't for Reform becoming more like the tories everyone hates, then I'd be expecting an absolute shellacking come the GE.
This is getting out-of-hand so fast, and there's so little that we can do about it, and I'm so tired. I used to be scared of where we'll be a month from now, but now I'm fearing every week for my privacy and safety, and I'm absolutely exhausted.
We need protests, we need investigations into this regulation. This has to stop. This is not okay.
Protests achieve little (if covered at all in the media). Unfortunately I think days of the internet as a free medium of exchange are coming to an end. Seems a bit cruel really. Shouid never have let people have acces in the first place.
For the majority it is though. The Everyman isn’t going to be subscribing to VPNs or whatever other alternatives to circumvent this creeping surveillance. They will begrudgingly accept and accept until every single click is monitored and added to a digital profile.
I'm baffled that the 'Safety Act' isn't being put quietly in a corner for a while as I just don't see what the government gain right now from it. It's not popular (not that that should ever be the only consideration), it's seemingly not well thought out and given the various other issues going it makes very little sense for it to appear a priority against...well, most things.
Firstly; never underestimate the self-righteousness of the left. Think of the children!!
But it's a hallmark of this government isn't it; bring out a deeply unpopular policy, defend it to the hilt, taken the drop in the polls, then U-turn/rollback later on for absolutely no political gain/capital.
Stellar politics from people who were really never meant to be in government in the first place.
never underestimate the self-righteousness of the left. Think of the children!!
Actually, the left tend to be against this sort of thing. It's the pearl-clutching middle-aged conservatives who tend to be "think of the children" types.
Feels like a lot of it comes down to a major shortfall in that they simply don't have anyone that is tech literate enough for the role of Secretary of Science, Tech & Innovation. Peter Kyles background was a Geography degree and being an aid worker for orphans. He was then replaced by Liz Kendall whose background is a History degree and work experience in an early learning child development charity. Since, both are now career politicians.
I believe these people are simply not equipped to dictate the details of app and website implementations or to understand what the ramifications in terms of security and privacy are for facilitating the ideas they have. Anyone that's worked in tech and had to deal with clients or end users that don't really get how the sausage is made will shiver at these people being in the driving seat for legislation, no matter how good their intentions are.
OK, I'm not sure I belong here, but I'll give you my perspective as an American.
Obligatory I didn't vote for Trump. He's a felon and belongs in prison, not the White House.
My problem with the "Online Safety Act" is that the Ofcom seems to think they can levy fines against people in other countries, including Americans like me, publishing websites from foreign countries on foreign server infrastructure. I don't really care if your government goes the Iran/China route and blocks websites that they don't want your people to see, it's the fines that really piss me off. See the case of Ofcom trying to collect fines from 4chan:
If I, and American, start a photography business and publish my photography portfolio website on a raspberry pi server in my house, and the website contains nudity (perfectly legal to do in the U.S. if the photo subjects are consenting adults and you own the copyright, etc), then the U.K. government could levy fines against me for it. Of course, they won't be able to collect those fines in America, but what happens when I visit the UK in the future? Will I be arrested at the airport?
I'm also really worried that any "client side scanning" referenced in this article would eventually spread to the U.S. if global messaging platforms try to adopt a global uniform policy for simplicity. You guys need to oppose this. How can I help?
The entire Western world is going through a major totalitarian phase right now. In my opinion, there are two ideologically distinct totalitarian factions: The fascists and the "think of the children" Karens. The fascists seem to be the ones in charge in the US at the federal level, and the Karens are running the show in Europe, UK, AUS, NZ, and at the state level in some US states. Both factions see us having privacy, freedom, agency, and control over our lives as a huge problem. We're all in this together, and I think we need to all push back together, too.
Not meaning to criticise the source but nothing in the actual instrument requires any changes to the act other than adding categories to the already existing “priority content” can someone who’s smarter than me point to the actual text that means they will start requiring client side scans?
Yeah - they added two categories, but those new categories trigger section 10, which requires platforms to scan every communication between users to prevent what the government classes as illegal content from being seen.
I believe the previous categories only triggered sections 6, 7, 8 and 9, which are less intrusive (risk assessments, age verification etc).
I may be wrong though, and am happy to be corrected.
Honestly the most realistic option is for companies to simply ignore the act. Most of them are based in the US and so are essentially immune to Ofcom, and the public will not take kindly to Ofcom blocking say google or Facebook
Exactly - another reason why this isn't just authoritarian, but is also just unenforceable and silly.
It just means that no new social platforms will ever be created in the UK, because they won't be able to have the lawyers, safety experts, safety algorithms etc required to not get fined and arrested in the UK.
Going to have a very chilling effect on the UK B2C tech scene, as almost every B2C platform has some form of messaging or content.
Companies like Google and Facebook will just continue to lobby the UK Gov, making out that they're doing their best so they don't get fined. As you say though, the idea that the UK gov would try to fine Facebook 10% of global revenue is hilarious..
They'll just use it as an excuse to block X, because the current government doesn't like X..
It's great for AI stocks. The big threat to AI stocks was that models were becoming more efficient and anyone could run them. Enter the government policing that only the billionaires are permitted to have them (by wrapping them up in enough additional regulatory machinery they must have) and that everyone must send the blessed AI barons all your money.
Talking of, you know how those sleep tracking apps use the mic to check for sheet rustling, changes in respiration, involuntary vocalizations, and so on?
My genius idea was a no-fap app (primarily aimed at Roman Catholics (no shade, I am reading the CCC right now)). Basically if the app detects fapping it issues a piercing >BEEEP<
Now, if I can just tie this in the DigitalID... with the right ID (say Wank Level 3), you might get no beep or even a soothing Liz Kendall voice to encourage you to continue.
And you thought they’d only target Musk. No. Only now you realize they had you looking at him so you wouldn’t see the chains they were slipping around your feet.
The government enforcing right think across all digital communications. How long till it is literally impossible to post anything that opposes Labour's policies and world views?
Might sound extreme but that is the progressive dream. To turn the entire internet into a big version of the Guardian, in which only right think is allowed.
To anyone with a brain the anti-Grok AI media run was obviously just manufacturing consent for more surveillance and censorship by the government. Notice how it was instantly about muh deepfakes and muh chilluns and then everyone was like "yeah! go labour! think of the children!" For once Elon was actually right when he was saying this is a massive overreaction and just an excuse to ban twitter. This stuff was always illegal in the UK, and always a bannable offense on twitter, the accounts get pruned as soon as they are reported, and because it required money to generate you'd have to link your real bank details to your account to do it, if anything it's a massive FBI honeypot for AI CP. Every single offline and uncensored AI can generate this exact same stuff, it's arguably better to have people with little tech literacy doing it in a way that gets them caught than learning to do it in a way that keeps them incognito.
Remember that Labour was the party that presided over all of the councils full of people who willingly let thousands of British children get gangraped en masse (and even participated along with local law enforcement!) because they didn't want to upset the multicultural community (none of the enablers ever got punished by the way, just the Pakistanis). Remember that Labour's ambassador to the US was Jeffrey Epstein's best friend for life. Remember that Peter Kyle the tech secretary that called everyone a Jimmy Saville (knighted by the Queen and loved by the British political class and BBC who covered up his crimes btw) apologist. Remember that Peter Kyle's best friend for life and fellow Labour member was a convicted paedophile.
It's all a huge scam of manufacturing consent for the OSA and more surveillance, censorship and contracts for Palantir. It's NOT that this is "rushed, poorly thought out legislation for reactionary reasons" as some people seem to think, it's because the manufactured consent they've gaslit into the public has hit the boiling point which is exactly where Labour needs it to be in order for this plan to go through with minimal pushback.
The images of police doorsteping the public for social media posts has broken into normie public consciousness, and is inexorably linked to the Labour brand (much to the relief of the Conservatives).
The first tranche of Online Safety Act regulation resulted in the almost complete transformation of network traffic in the UK into encrypted channels hosted internationally. VPN uptake has been stupendous.
The next tranche of chat pre-scanning regulation will normalize non-UK, fully-encrypted chat systems being adopted. Something like Signal will replace WhatsApp for example.
In just a few short years, UK intelligence services will have gone from monitoring a passive-naive network of traffic that inferences and tapping can be applied to, to a largely opaque encrypted blob from which they can gain little insight.
Once this comes in, it will stay in because they’ll just shift people’s focus away from it and people will forget about it on a large. People really need to stop thinking on the “My party would never let this happen” and realise - They all want this. Half of Reform are ex Tories that were part of the original proposals…
What amazes me is that the people desperately defending this now will immediately start screaming about it when Reform get in and start using it to support their agenda.
Wait until Bluesky gets the Twitter treatment.....
The same Farage that testified to the US Congress on UK speech repression and surveillance from the OSA? Or Zia Yusuf that gave an hour long talk last month about how exactly Reform would repeal the Act (above and beyond amending it).
Who am I kidding though right, Farage is an establishment stooge who can't be trusted; that's why we're still in the EU after he lobbied for us to remain despite a political career arguing to leave.
Where are the people demanding this is actually a good thing and that if it protects 2-3 people it’s worth having every message you send vetted and scanned by government agencies?
Snapshot of UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning of Digital Communications submitted by media_blast:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
how far does this extend?
say a partner sends you a private snapchat / whatsapp that includes nudity, does the app/service now scan it and flag you can't have it?
just wondering as this sounds pretty invasive
It will scan everything because their schedule is that any communication may be kiddie porn. The whole point of this thing is to scan any messages they can't get to
We all laughed when we read the 4chan Greentext about British people needing wanking licenses.
Apparently that's not far off...
They're really not wrong about licencing culture here (feels very dirty saying anon is right about anything).
I would guess that the app would have to determine if it's legal through a mix of AI and/or humans And if so, the person it's being sent to will have to be a verified adult? Probably will have to consent to see it, since the law is described as being to prevent e-flashing.
What a fucking joke of a country this is.
They’ll start tabling internet shutdowns next whenever the news gets a little spicy.
That's already on the cards. When technocrats threaten a country, they will deny access to their sites, and then more on the side.
Means we can’t post anything anywhere unless government approves. Say goodbye to tinder as nudes will be blocked.
We voted for this, we knew Labour are authoritarian so we deserve it.
This is happing everywhere we are just the test subjects
Most people didn't vote Labour at the last general election. There was also little mention of the authoritarian policies the Labour government has followed since gaining power in its manifesto or electoral campaigning so even people who did vote Labour didn't necessarily think they were voting for a lot of this stuff.
Our electoral and government system is grossly unrepresentative and sometimes results in parties that lack anything close to majority popular support gaining near absolute power and being able to push through whatever they want with few checks or balances for five years afterwards. Let's not diminish how serious these problems are with casually dismissive "we voted for this" comments.
I didn't vote for them. I remembered the ID database and the Digital Economy Act (forced through by Peter Mandleson as the last act before Brown called a GE) last time they were in government. I also remembered Jacqui Smith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#Initial_controversies_arising_from_the_proposed_act
How many of the current Labour leadership who are setting policy in government were even MPs before 2010 or involved in setting the party's policies at that time? How many people who can vote today are old enough to be aware of anything that last Labour government did? You can't just say a government with the same colour of rosette did something a bit authoritarian many years ago and so people voting for candidates with that colour of rosette today are supporting removing the right to a jury trial or installing mandatory spyware on everyone's devices that would fundamentally undermine security and privacy for the whole country. It's unclear exactly how far the current government will really try to go with all of this but given their track record and open advocacy of severely authoritarian policies so far I don't think they'll get much benefit of the doubt from most people who care about these issues.
Yea I remembered ID cards. Said I wasn’t voting Labour and people would mock me.
But I as right here they are doing digital ID, facial recognition cameras and scanning private messages
This was had cross house support and was in the works since around 2010. This is not new and was also supported by the Tories.
I didn’t fucking vote for this… Hell, there was more votes for Jeremy Corbyn than Keir Starmer and we’ve gotten Nazi Party membership starting.
Whenever I read "OfCom", my brain reads it in a German accent. No concious decision led to that, it's just so scarily accurate that my brain slipped into it.
There’s no nudes on tinder.
It’s almost as if he has no idea what he’s talking about
Wait. You don’t open the conversation with a dck pic?!!
Of course. Who doesn’t like ducks?
Lemonade stand operators
Got any grapes ?
You can't send photos on Tinder
Well, maybe not on your tinder.
Or mine.
No you can't send pics over tinder
True but there are on sites like fabswingers. I’m not sure how sites will prove consent for sharing nude images now really.
Tories would be doing the same. This is a higher mandate.
Which is it? This is a problem specific to labour, or it's happening everywhere? Who exactly would have opposed this?
At the moment it’s Labour at least in the UK. Anglo countries are going all out on this stuff and Europe are trying to pass some similar laws.
Its the Neolibs in general. Blair was moving this way then Cameron's Tories EU have always been pushing this way and before Trump the US was too.
They all want complete control.
You don't think trump is authoritarian/wants control?
I think Trump wants to make himself and his family even richer. Starmer is part of the international Ne Lib cabal that just wants to control everybody and everything.
Plot twist they aren’t Neo liberals but authoritarian governmentalists .
On stuff like this? Demonstrably he's not. He's worse of course in most other ways, but I don't see him suggesting the government should pre-approve your content.
What about requiring access to your social media to enter the country?
The law did indeed have cross party support with some very weak and mild opposition and attempts to amend bits of it here and there from a handful of Libertarian Conservatives and Lib Dems and a few people like Baroness Fox, David Davis etc
It was cooked up by and brought into legislation by the tories, getting it into law in 2023…
So what? Labour cancelled the Tories' Rwandan legislation in the first week
Irrelevant. Labour can just opt not to approve it. They could show balls and actual leadership, but nah, kowtow to nonsense as always.
Tories are just as bad, so no, ain't no supporter of them idiots too
The article is about an amendment which was put forward in Oct. 2025.
That's under Labour.
Are we pretending Labour don't support OSA now? They're a big supporter of it and are extending its powers further.
You remember where Labour said if you dislike OSA it means you support Jimmy Saville?
An amendment which adds categories, it does not change the OSA, no extra powers were given…
Pre-emptive scanning of private communication is a pretty fucking massive change.
Which wasn’t added in the statutory instrument ….
Is there, or is there not, a new practical effect as a result of this change?
I do love how Labour are championing OSA, saying how it's a tent pole of reducing crime against women, hope to extend the powers and its use.
While people also argue that it's the Tories doing when people criticise the law.
And remember, Labour wanted this legislation to be worse than it was voted for and agreed to be law at the time. May have been a Tory policy, but Labour wanted it worse.
And now Labour are in power, this amendment came in October 2025
I followed the passage through Parliament. This is true but also all political parties supported the law. Labour tabs led amendments that strengthened the law at every opportunity.
China has Upload filters. It will start with CSAM as who can argue against that? Then before you know it they will start expanding it.
Already since the act of as introduced more and more things get added as priority offences.
Then they will start censoring other stuff.
At some point the pendulum will swing the other way. Probably younger generation will rebel against it or develop their own illegal underground tech
The Tories weren't authoritarian? The failed dregs of the Tories now inhabiting Reform wouldn't have continued to be authoritarian?
This was a conservative act that passed in 2023
FYI - snapchat is not encrypted. If she sends you her nudes on snapchat she’s sharing it with Mark Zuckerberg and every tech specialist at Meta with an interest in porn.
FYIv2 - Whatsapp is not using quantum safe encrypted - but Meta is certainly saving the data until quantum computers are here. If she sends you her nudes on whatsapp she’s sharing it with Mark Zuckerberg and every tech specialist at Meta with an interest in porn
Android phones already do this with messages on device.
It with censor nudity.
We're back baby.
Prior restraint as its known.
Please dear, can you keep it down; this is a family restaurant
Oh please dear? For for your information the supreme court has roundly dismissed prior restraint!
You know how your granddad used to say "When I was a lad, we had to use our imaginations"? Guess what.
Cavaliers and Roundheads, wya
[removed]
This comment has been filtered for manual review by a moderator. Please do not mention other subreddits in your comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
This has "rushed poorly thought through legislation in response to current panic" written all over it.
Which never ends well.
Our civil service have a long and storied history of "helping" our governments put together terrible legislation around anything to do with tech and I have exactly zero confidence that what they are doing here will be fit for purpose (any purpose at all TBH)
The drones at Ofcom will rush headlong into trying to enforce ridiculous rules, with absolutely no regard for how these systems actually work in practice, or what the outcomes are. They will parrot out their approved lines about protecting people, but give absolutely no regard for potential harm that arises from their action.
I wonder how long it is before we see the first wrongfully accused person having to fight to clear their name due to some over-zealous AI bot misinterpreting something.
A tangential worry I have is people i.e. decision makers simply not thinking at all around AI outputs, or outsourcing the thinking to it. Just blindly trusting the marketing that it's "100% accurate."
The potential for people to fight a losing uphill battle that maybe the technology is wrong, whilst everyone shrugs and repeat that ChatGPT says no, so it's a no, is concerning.
YouTube commentary channels have spoken of at least one incident where a person had to convince security and police that the AI was wrong and they have the wrong person.
"Rush" as in do a investigation that will tale 6 to 12 months.
I think this law has been planned for a while, so it wasn't thought up at the last minute. Timing is a bit coincidental though.
This was passed with Secondary legislation
Fun fact about, back in 2023 when the Online Safety Act was being written, it required all companies to have their encryption have a backdoor meaning the government can read any encrypted message if they request it.
Companies like Apple released huge documents as to why this is such a bad idea, what it means to privacy and hacking, and they said they would take iMessage in the UK instead of complying (good on Apple here). The backlash was so much that the gov removed it from the bill.
So I am REALLY HOPING Apple and other privacy companies will send their challenges and go through with their plan of blocking UK access to certain features instead of complying.
It’s a sad state we find ourselves in hoping that a semi-monopoly (alongside Android/Google) will stand on the right side. At this point the cause feels lost. Privacy will be forgotten to history. Get your face scans ready because this will be the first of many amendments making the already bad OSA even worse for all.
I know a retina consultant and he was telling me how with AI, you tell a lot about a person with a retina scan. In the same way we easily accept car reg plates being scanned, our eyes will be next whenever we enter the public domain.
Sadly the reporting on this wasn’t quite as accurate as what happened. There was a last minute big intervention from Apple, WhatsApp, Signal and civil liberties groups.
In the end all that was won was an amendment that an independent person has to write a report on the use of the powers that Ofcom has to asses before they can use them.
This is part of section 121 the ‘spy clause’ in the bill.
Up until now Ofcom haven’t really wanted to use the powers but they are coming under heavy pressure to do so from parliamentarians and charities like the NSPCC and IWF etc and the safety campaigners
Never had this problem with Sam Fox Strip poker on the Spectrum 48K.
I understood that reference...
And those rubber keys were a godsend, in hindsight... so easy to clean!
Whose manifesto was this in? Who voted for this? No one.
Didn’t you know the OSA ran an opinion poll of less than 0.5% of the population that they chose and 70% of them agreed with everything they did so therefore it’s fine /s
If they'd asked ~350,000 people and that was the outcome it would at least have had a sliver of democracy to it. But they didn't.
Funnily enough, when you get into the weeds with that poll you find that they didn’t ask people if they’d be OK with the logical outcome of implementing the OSA, which is handing over PII to third party sites with dubious data security, having your communications snooped on etc. They asked if children should be able to access harmful material online, which is a very different question and obviously most sane people are going to say no to that. They’ve then spun the latter as a response to the former. It’s insidious and it’s misleading.
Tories and Labour had it in their 2019 election manifestos.
The Tories: We will legislate to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online – protecting children from online abuse and harms, protecting the most vulnerable from accessing harmful content, and ensuring there is no safe space for terrorists to hide online – but at the same time defending freedom of expression and in particular recognising and defending the invaluable role of a free press
Labour: We will enforce a legal duty of care to protect our children online, impose fines on companies that fail on online abuse and empower the public with a Charter of Digital Rights.
This is not new legislation the OSA allows the Secretary of State the power to add categories that platforms need to monitor/prevent.
Proceeds to quote paragraphs that no reasonable person would interpret "mandate pre-emptive scanning of digital communications".
Nowhere in the amendments made in October 2025, does it mention the pre-empetive scanning of digital communications.
The Secretary of State makes these Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by section 222(3) of the Online Safety Act 2023(1).
The Secretary of State considers it appropriate to add to Schedule 7(2) to that Act the offences set out in regulation 2(2) and 2(3) on the ground set out in section 222(4) of that Act.
In accordance with section 225(1)(k) of that Act, a draft of these Regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
Citation, commencement and extent 1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
(2) These Regulations come into force on the 21st day after the day on which they are made.
(3) These Regulations extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Amendment of Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 2.—(1) Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 (priority offences) is amended in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3).
(2) After paragraph 2 insert—
Encouraging or assisting serious self-harm 2A. An offence under section 184 of this Act (encouraging or assisting serious self-harm).”.
(3) For paragraph 28A substitute—
“28A. An offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003(3)—
(a)section 66A (sending etc photograph or film of genitals)(4);
(b)section 66B (sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film)(5).”.
Then what were you replying to?
You know it’s a fucking problem when only Reform UK has said they’d scrap or repeal the OSA… Cos we’ve gone to protecting kids to full surveillance state, even at th height of mass casualty terrorist attacks the public said no and now they’ve just gone and done it, no consultation, no fucking anything.
Let’s scan for Nudes, then words, then phrases, then we’ll send the police round to their home and throw them into a prison cell that we don’t put sexual predators because they’re all on suspended sentenced outside prison, but that phrase you sent, that’s 3 years prison, no jury trial, no one can hear your appeals for years.
This was always the goal.
Yep, labour cozying upto china too isnt a coincidence.
The Greens passed a motion at their conference making it party policy to repeal but they never talk about it.
They talked about it more than Reform did though. And Farage was in favour of it when asked at first, until he saw the massive public backlash to the policy at which point he voiced against it
Exactly my gripe, and I don't believe reforms abilities to do much based on energy policy, but I cannot support this overreach and I fear I'll have to vote for them.
Meanwhile we stay hush about Trump. What a world.
If reform are against it then I'm for it. Reform is the party of the pedos, all them Tommy Robinson and that lot they're all nonces and I reckon the new law is going to thwart them going after preteen girls and thats why they're against it. They'll keep the scanning just let the kiddie porn through.
Time for the Lib Dems to come out against this, surely...?
You have to be grateful for Labour in a way. Their Orwellian crusade against the Internet will almost certainly drive the development of new technologies and methods of circumventing their pitiful attempt at control.
Yeah, but the hate has been brought to bear now. So Labour really poisoned an already toxic well. Any new technologies and the support of it would be militant, all because of Labour being so obsessed nannying folks with their insufferable morals
Mesh network is looking more intresting these days
“.. describing the measure as part of the government’s strategy to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.”
Is sending a nude usually a precursor to violence against women and girls? Seems a strange take.
And how is gay men sending dick pics on Grindr contributing to violence against women and girls? This is just one more bs from Labour
The term ‘violence against women and girls’ refers to acts of violence or abuse that we know disproportionately affect women and girls. These crimes include - and are not limited to - rape, sexual violence, domestic abuse, stalking, ‘honour’-based abuse including forced marriage, ‘revenge porn’, and the harms associated with sex work and prostitution.
Men who are victims of these crimes are counted in the 'violence against women and girls' statistics. Whilst I'm not saying dick pics lead to violence, partner violence between gay men certainly contributes to violence against women and girls.
Be angry at the government for its definition if you want, but at least be informed.
How do we know just how disproportionate it is if it’s framed that way seemingly eternally? I would encourage you to check out r/ thetinmen for a decent run down of where these stats are doing a lot of work rhetorically and not for everyone’s benefit.
They can be angry that it is unrelated to violence against women and girls regardless of anyone's definition.
Alcohol can be a precursor for violence; should we ban it?
Becomes an almost meaningless statistic if they throw basically everything into the same bucket.
Yes and it's clearly a nonsensical definition if it includes offences or abuse committed against men.
And the eminent ridiculousness of a statement such as this makes clear the issues with such a definition.
It’s simple really, you receive or send a nude? Straight to jail.
Ordering lingerie or toys for your partner? Yep, that’s jail.
Flirting via text? That’s fine! No, just kidding, it’s jail.
Love heart emoji? Burnt at the fucking stake for your decadent ways.
I’ve already reported Microsoft to the police for including the aubergine emoji and the water splash emoji within their software. If those aren’t tools to send explicit messages then this law just doesn’t go far enough.
Aubergine-peach made my kids gay! It's a disgrace. Something must be done!
I have also written to the Unicode Consortium about the inclusion of "box drawing characters"... did you know you can produce swastikas with them? IDK what the world is coming to, I really don't.
It's like 1993 all over again and Dave showing me
80085on his fancy Casio FX-451M. DISGUSTING!It's seen as being quite aggressive by a lot of women and is generally intended to degrade them. It's probably worse than public flashing as it can happen wherever the person is (such as the workplace or at home).
If people can apply a flag saying "this person can send me intimate pictures/ videos", and there are tools made available to easily report to the police when things are sent inappropriately. Some folk in long distance relationships share naughty pictures and video with very enthusiastic consent from both sides, I don't see any reason for that to be curtailed so long as both have actively marked as providing consent for a given time period (so you can't retrospectively revoke it, but can withdraw it going forward).
I like this in theory, but in practice it still necessitates every message being scanned.
Nope, it would just package up the messages with meta data in a format which could be readily forwarded to the police if someone sends something not ok. If the consent tag is applied it would be marked as such in the meta data indicating the context of the interaction.
Harrowing. I haven't felt represented by a government in a long time.
We're gonna end up with a Reform government. Aren't we?
With any luck
it was always going to happen, just look at EU chat control, same thing, only that we've already given them the OSA and did nothing about it and now they'll take it for a mile. always ridiculous to see people allow the gov to nanny them/their children etc and now you'll be beat into submission into it as well.
Holy shit Labour are really clamping down on the internet aren't they. Funny that we give China shit when we're looking to become so much worse.
Most authoritarian government that I've seen in a long time. Scary the path they are going.
I think governments around the world are envious of China's 'siloed' internet where the state basically controls everything.
Trying to lock down the internet is a tough ask, North Korea and Turkmenistan decided they couldn't be arsed trying and just don't allow regular citizens to access the internet at all. North Korea has a highly skilled cybercrime sector, I think if there was a way to truly lock down the internet to their satisfaction they would have found it.
The bigger issue is the UK Government try to ban this stuff whilst still using US-based platforms like meta and X. They’re focused on ‘online harms’ but ignore the wider social harms caused by these digital platforms.
[They should also whack Microsoft for closing Skype and forcing people onto ‘Teams’ /s]
Whack Microsoft for shoving Copilot everywhere, alongside its "take pictures of everything" Recall, while we're at it (semi serious /s)
So they should ban social media too because you do not like it?
Where does the censorship stop exactly?
If you want to play the "social harms' game then you'd be banning all algorithmic infinite scroll social networks including sites like Reddit. Anything less and you're just admitting that the issue isn't social harms its that you don't like a discussion forum that adheres to US principles of free speech instead of European censorship.
Sometimes I wonder how much better the world would be if Labour did clamp down on the internet in the way people think they are... then maybe we would get so much nonsense like this article (and headline), from a random clickbait-farming 'lobby' group.
“Yes. Tighten the leash!” Forgive the rest of us for not indulging in the english vice with you.
Media who pay political parties will still be free to post all the crap they want, just our voices will be gone.
I think western governments would prefer if we went back to the pre-internet age where voters only expressed themselves at election time.
How does government boot taste?
I hate this country. Misery and brow beating is all it knows. We are a nation of gruell.
Interesting how this turned out… Those of us who warned about this from the start were ridiculed, downvoted, and dismissed as conspiracy theorists. I assume the same voices will now be just as vocal in admitting how wrong they were.
No. They’ll just shift to how it’s actually a good thing because it will prevent crime before it happens or something.
This shit needs to stop.
It's time I stand up for my children and don't let these authoritarian pricks rob them of the benefits of an open Internet when they're adults
Cannot wait for the next “DAE think Kier Starmer is actually doing quite a good job” post on here
Mass scanning of all communications Delaying elections Abolishing juries ID cards Facial recognition in all town centres
Starmer is destroying Labour's support for generations. If it wasn't for Reform becoming more like the tories everyone hates, then I'd be expecting an absolute shellacking come the GE.
This is getting out-of-hand so fast, and there's so little that we can do about it, and I'm so tired. I used to be scared of where we'll be a month from now, but now I'm fearing every week for my privacy and safety, and I'm absolutely exhausted.
We need protests, we need investigations into this regulation. This has to stop. This is not okay.
Protests achieve little (if covered at all in the media). Unfortunately I think days of the internet as a free medium of exchange are coming to an end. Seems a bit cruel really. Shouid never have let people have acces in the first place.
The free Internet is not coming to an end.
It is in this country
For the majority it is though. The Everyman isn’t going to be subscribing to VPNs or whatever other alternatives to circumvent this creeping surveillance. They will begrudgingly accept and accept until every single click is monitored and added to a digital profile.
If you have to use VPN then it might as well be
I'm baffled that the 'Safety Act' isn't being put quietly in a corner for a while as I just don't see what the government gain right now from it. It's not popular (not that that should ever be the only consideration), it's seemingly not well thought out and given the various other issues going it makes very little sense for it to appear a priority against...well, most things.
Firstly; never underestimate the self-righteousness of the left. Think of the children!!
But it's a hallmark of this government isn't it; bring out a deeply unpopular policy, defend it to the hilt, taken the drop in the polls, then U-turn/rollback later on for absolutely no political gain/capital.
Stellar politics from people who were really never meant to be in government in the first place.
Is the left in the room with us now?
No, theyre in westminster
No they're in government
Every time I come here I’m told I have a different deeply-held belief that as a leftist that I’ve never advocated for in my life.
Actually, the left tend to be against this sort of thing. It's the pearl-clutching middle-aged conservatives who tend to be "think of the children" types.
Feels like a lot of it comes down to a major shortfall in that they simply don't have anyone that is tech literate enough for the role of Secretary of Science, Tech & Innovation. Peter Kyles background was a Geography degree and being an aid worker for orphans. He was then replaced by Liz Kendall whose background is a History degree and work experience in an early learning child development charity. Since, both are now career politicians.
I believe these people are simply not equipped to dictate the details of app and website implementations or to understand what the ramifications in terms of security and privacy are for facilitating the ideas they have. Anyone that's worked in tech and had to deal with clients or end users that don't really get how the sausage is made will shiver at these people being in the driving seat for legislation, no matter how good their intentions are.
These changes probably will be popular. Who's going to object to a crackdown on "cyberflashing?"
OK, I'm not sure I belong here, but I'll give you my perspective as an American.
Obligatory I didn't vote for Trump. He's a felon and belongs in prison, not the White House.
My problem with the "Online Safety Act" is that the Ofcom seems to think they can levy fines against people in other countries, including Americans like me, publishing websites from foreign countries on foreign server infrastructure. I don't really care if your government goes the Iran/China route and blocks websites that they don't want your people to see, it's the fines that really piss me off. See the case of Ofcom trying to collect fines from 4chan:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyjq40vjl7o
If I, and American, start a photography business and publish my photography portfolio website on a raspberry pi server in my house, and the website contains nudity (perfectly legal to do in the U.S. if the photo subjects are consenting adults and you own the copyright, etc), then the U.K. government could levy fines against me for it. Of course, they won't be able to collect those fines in America, but what happens when I visit the UK in the future? Will I be arrested at the airport?
I'm also really worried that any "client side scanning" referenced in this article would eventually spread to the U.S. if global messaging platforms try to adopt a global uniform policy for simplicity. You guys need to oppose this. How can I help?
OFC you do, it's UK politics, not politics for UKers.
Yet it is not the MAGAtards who are pushing for such laws, it is actually the criminal "Progressives" all over the world doing this.
*Puts on conspiracy theory hat*:
The entire Western world is going through a major totalitarian phase right now. In my opinion, there are two ideologically distinct totalitarian factions: The fascists and the "think of the children" Karens. The fascists seem to be the ones in charge in the US at the federal level, and the Karens are running the show in Europe, UK, AUS, NZ, and at the state level in some US states. Both factions see us having privacy, freedom, agency, and control over our lives as a huge problem. We're all in this together, and I think we need to all push back together, too.
Not meaning to criticise the source but nothing in the actual instrument requires any changes to the act other than adding categories to the already existing “priority content” can someone who’s smarter than me point to the actual text that means they will start requiring client side scans?
Yeah - they added two categories, but those new categories trigger section 10, which requires platforms to scan every communication between users to prevent what the government classes as illegal content from being seen.
I believe the previous categories only triggered sections 6, 7, 8 and 9, which are less intrusive (risk assessments, age verification etc).
I may be wrong though, and am happy to be corrected.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50.
Section 10 has been active since January 2024
It does, but that duty says “proportional measures” I think it’ll be hard to sell that all this scanning is proportional especially with e2e services.
Yeah - no idea what legal precedent would be for proportionality here. Way over my head as someone who has never worked in law aha
I guess to have any visibility of the 'illegal content', they would have to scan every message with some sort of algorithm/model?
Honestly the most realistic option is for companies to simply ignore the act. Most of them are based in the US and so are essentially immune to Ofcom, and the public will not take kindly to Ofcom blocking say google or Facebook
Exactly - another reason why this isn't just authoritarian, but is also just unenforceable and silly.
It just means that no new social platforms will ever be created in the UK, because they won't be able to have the lawyers, safety experts, safety algorithms etc required to not get fined and arrested in the UK.
Going to have a very chilling effect on the UK B2C tech scene, as almost every B2C platform has some form of messaging or content.
Companies like Google and Facebook will just continue to lobby the UK Gov, making out that they're doing their best so they don't get fined. As you say though, the idea that the UK gov would try to fine Facebook 10% of global revenue is hilarious..
They'll just use it as an excuse to block X, because the current government doesn't like X..
Well if Reddit is anything to go by, banning X seems to have legions of support
True, but a LOT of people use facebook for family group chats etc. Far more important stuff than random stuff people say on X.
Facebook will never get blocked. They pretty much comply with everything that's asked of them. Plus Zuckerberg isn't a Musk.
People on Reddit hate the erosion of civil liberties, but they hate Elon Musk even more..
I think this will end up in court.
Yeah this source is not the best, anyone got more information?
This is good for AI stocks. Let's build it into everything so that everyone can be preemptively protected.
It's great for AI stocks. The big threat to AI stocks was that models were becoming more efficient and anyone could run them. Enter the government policing that only the billionaires are permitted to have them (by wrapping them up in enough additional regulatory machinery they must have) and that everyone must send the blessed AI barons all your money.
Talking of, you know how those sleep tracking apps use the mic to check for sheet rustling, changes in respiration, involuntary vocalizations, and so on?
My genius idea was a no-fap app (primarily aimed at Roman Catholics (no shade, I am reading the CCC right now)). Basically if the app detects fapping it issues a piercing >BEEEP<
Now, if I can just tie this in the DigitalID... with the right ID (say Wank Level 3), you might get no beep or even a soothing Liz Kendall voice to encourage you to continue.
Well when we're all shackled at least the women and the girls and the children will be safe or some shit I don't know
And you thought they’d only target Musk. No. Only now you realize they had you looking at him so you wouldn’t see the chains they were slipping around your feet.
Are we seriously back to legislating against end-to-end encryption?
Wow, this is Chinese level shit here.
The government enforcing right think across all digital communications. How long till it is literally impossible to post anything that opposes Labour's policies and world views?
Might sound extreme but that is the progressive dream. To turn the entire internet into a big version of the Guardian, in which only right think is allowed.
To anyone with a brain the anti-Grok AI media run was obviously just manufacturing consent for more surveillance and censorship by the government. Notice how it was instantly about muh deepfakes and muh chilluns and then everyone was like "yeah! go labour! think of the children!" For once Elon was actually right when he was saying this is a massive overreaction and just an excuse to ban twitter. This stuff was always illegal in the UK, and always a bannable offense on twitter, the accounts get pruned as soon as they are reported, and because it required money to generate you'd have to link your real bank details to your account to do it, if anything it's a massive FBI honeypot for AI CP. Every single offline and uncensored AI can generate this exact same stuff, it's arguably better to have people with little tech literacy doing it in a way that gets them caught than learning to do it in a way that keeps them incognito.
Remember that Labour was the party that presided over all of the councils full of people who willingly let thousands of British children get gangraped en masse (and even participated along with local law enforcement!) because they didn't want to upset the multicultural community (none of the enablers ever got punished by the way, just the Pakistanis). Remember that Labour's ambassador to the US was Jeffrey Epstein's best friend for life. Remember that Peter Kyle the tech secretary that called everyone a Jimmy Saville (knighted by the Queen and loved by the British political class and BBC who covered up his crimes btw) apologist. Remember that Peter Kyle's best friend for life and fellow Labour member was a convicted paedophile.
It's all a huge scam of manufacturing consent for the OSA and more surveillance, censorship and contracts for Palantir. It's NOT that this is "rushed, poorly thought out legislation for reactionary reasons" as some people seem to think, it's because the manufactured consent they've gaslit into the public has hit the boiling point which is exactly where Labour needs it to be in order for this plan to go through with minimal pushback.
This will be repealed by a Reform Parliament.
The images of police doorsteping the public for social media posts has broken into normie public consciousness, and is inexorably linked to the Labour brand (much to the relief of the Conservatives).
The first tranche of Online Safety Act regulation resulted in the almost complete transformation of network traffic in the UK into encrypted channels hosted internationally. VPN uptake has been stupendous.
The next tranche of chat pre-scanning regulation will normalize non-UK, fully-encrypted chat systems being adopted. Something like Signal will replace WhatsApp for example.
In just a few short years, UK intelligence services will have gone from monitoring a passive-naive network of traffic that inferences and tapping can be applied to, to a largely opaque encrypted blob from which they can gain little insight.
You think Reform will repeal it 🤣
Once this comes in, it will stay in because they’ll just shift people’s focus away from it and people will forget about it on a large. People really need to stop thinking on the “My party would never let this happen” and realise - They all want this. Half of Reform are ex Tories that were part of the original proposals…
The amount of people who think reform will fix anything when they're mostly tories who caused the shit show we're in is crazy.
I guess we'll never leave the EU either
What amazes me is that the people desperately defending this now will immediately start screaming about it when Reform get in and start using it to support their agenda.
Wait until Bluesky gets the Twitter treatment.....
Of course it won’t lol
It’s their wet dream, they’re just lucky it’s being done by labour so they don’t have the backlash
The same Farage that testified to the US Congress on UK speech repression and surveillance from the OSA? Or Zia Yusuf that gave an hour long talk last month about how exactly Reform would repeal the Act (above and beyond amending it).
Who am I kidding though right, Farage is an establishment stooge who can't be trusted; that's why we're still in the EU after he lobbied for us to remain despite a political career arguing to leave.
Oh wait hang on
Where are the people demanding this is actually a good thing and that if it protects 2-3 people it’s worth having every message you send vetted and scanned by government agencies?
So many questions... Does this apply to B2C environments? I assume not? Otherwise MyBuilder is going under for sure.
What are timelines on this? Genuinely, the first I'm hearing of it
Oh no! A Labour policy that goes too far?!
Well, now I'm going to start sending pictures of my arse everywhere just so that someone at Labour has to look at it.
Was this in Labour’s manifesto?
Or another push by unqualified civil servants who want to conquer the public?
Disgusting, I hope Labour will never see power again. Reform are the only party committed to removing this authoritarian state bullshit.
Really? Their policies don't mention anything about removing these measures. In fact they advocate ramping up the police state.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1718625371/Reform_UK_Our_Contract_with_You.pdf
Don't blame others just because you're low on information
https://www.ft.com/content/886ee83a-02ab-48b6-b557-857a38f30c1d