Internet Safety or Danger: Implications of the UK’s Online Safety Act

After two years of deliberation, the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act has finally come into effect, and with its controversial protocol now set in place across the internet, the backlash has already begun. The policy debate hinges on two major questions: First, do security measures actually prevent children from accessing prohibited material? And second, what ought we prioritize more, freedom and privacy, or safety? 

How effective is the Online Safety Act? According to the London School of Economics and Political Science, the short-term impacts of the Act will be minimal, acting as a deterrent to youth seeking to access illicit content, rather than a blockade. The Financial Times agrees, reporting that within the United Kingdom, there has been a 10-to 15-fold increase in the download rates of VPN apps since June 25 of this year. An act that is actively being circumvented is not an act that is fulfilling its job. This, however, isn’t to say that the act is meritless—in fact, there exists a significant portion of the United Kingdom’s population who hold the opposite opinion. The Times, while criticizing the Safety Act, notes that it’s a step in the right direction, asserting that a flawed system that seeks change can be better than no system at all.  

How does the Online Safety Act balance freedom, privacy, and safety? Per the Electronic Frontier Foundation, not well. The act, which seeks to “make the U.K. the safest place,” ironically does so by destroying access to safe spaces. For example, communities attempting to aid in suicide prevention could find themselves obscured by censorship, trying to hide content mentioning self-harm, ultimately endangering more children than it would help. The danger of the act, however, goes beyond individual impact, as it also poses a risk to fundamental rights. According to Reuters, the act poses a potential threat to free speech and privacy, barricading access to information and media while raising concerns about data privacy from those able to access the blocked sites.

Ultimately, the Online Safety Act exists as a jumbled bag of good and bad. There is both merit and room for criticism, and important legislative decisions must be made in the aftermath of the act. 

Extemp Analysis by: Santiago Jimenez

Question: Should the United Kingdom’s online safety laws be used as a global model?

AGD: Comedic Scenario (try not to be too inappropriate though!)/Rhetorical Question (Is it online safety, if in the process, it puts more people in danger?)/Media or Historical Reference (Draw ties between state blocking media access in the UK and in popular media or history) 

Background:  There definitely exists a good deal of balance in whether to answer no vs. yes, though generally, more evidence will side with no because of the present concerns over privacy and freedom.

Answer: NO was my answer

1.  Risks for the individual

• Less access to mental health services, barred access to legal information

2.  Risks for the collective

• Dangers of ID uploading, peer-to-peer dm access by state (risks privacy for all), freedom of speech concerns

3. Risks for corporations

• Shifts responsibility of parents onto less-than-trustworthy corporations, would take a massive monetary investment (could lead to flight), makes it difficult for small platforms to compete with platforms like meta and x as its difficult to develop security measures

Read more here:

• Paige Collings, Electronic Frontier Foundation 

• No Author, Electronic Frontier Foundation 

• Lorna Woods, The London School of Economics and Political Science

• The Editorial Board, The Financial Times

• Rebecca Sheriff, The Times

• No Author, Reuters

• Alex Treryth, The Guardian

• Aaron Mak, Politico