UK Online Safety Act: Difference between revisions
m →YouTube: Update intralink. |
Re-archived 7 citation(s) from archive.today to web.archive.org using CRWCitationBot |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
Since the UK Online Safety Act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other,<ref name=":2" /> it has a broad impact across the entire internet for those accessing websites from within the UK. All online services that Ofcom deems to be within the scope of the Online Safety Act must incorporate an identity verification process to determine each user's age.<ref name=":3" /> This has forced many websites to geo-block the UK because they are too small to justify or afford implementing their own the identity verification process or partnering with a third provider. A list of affected websites is available on [https://OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk]. | Since the UK Online Safety Act applies to search services and services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other,<ref name=":2" /> it has a broad impact across the entire internet for those accessing websites from within the UK. All online services that Ofcom deems to be within the scope of the Online Safety Act must incorporate an identity verification process to determine each user's age.<ref name=":3" /> This has forced many websites to geo-block the UK because they are too small to justify or afford implementing their own the identity verification process or partnering with a third provider. A list of affected websites is available on [https://OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk OnlineSafetyAct.co.uk]. | ||
The broad range of the act has caused content from breaking news,<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Koopman |first=Saskia |date=August 13, 2025 |title=Why the Online Safety Act has become a political nightmare |url=https://www.cityam.com/why-labours-online-safety-act-has-become-a-political-nightmare/ |website=City AM |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref> war footages,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maiberg |first=Emanuel |date=July 29, 2025 |title=UK Users Need to Post Selfie or Photo ID to View Reddit's r/IsraelCrimes, r/UkraineWarFootage |url=https://www.404media.co/uk-users-need-to-post-selfie-or-photo-id-to-view-reddits-r-israelcrimes-r-ukrainewarfootage/ |archive-url=https:// | The broad range of the act has caused content from breaking news,<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Koopman |first=Saskia |date=August 13, 2025 |title=Why the Online Safety Act has become a political nightmare |url=https://www.cityam.com/why-labours-online-safety-act-has-become-a-political-nightmare/ |website=City AM |access-date=August 25, 2025}}</ref> war footages,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maiberg |first=Emanuel |date=July 29, 2025 |title=UK Users Need to Post Selfie or Photo ID to View Reddit's r/IsraelCrimes, r/UkraineWarFootage |url=https://www.404media.co/uk-users-need-to-post-selfie-or-photo-id-to-view-reddits-r-israelcrimes-r-ukrainewarfootage/ |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260216122744/https://www.404media.co/uk-users-need-to-post-selfie-or-photo-id-to-view-reddits-r-israelcrimes-r-ukrainewarfootage/ |archive-date=16 Feb 2026|access-date=August 25, 2025 |website=404 Media}}</ref> and political videos<ref name=":6" /> to be heavily suppressed and labelled "harmful". | ||
===Spotify=== | ===Spotify=== | ||
To view age-restricted content on [[Spotify]], users in the UK are now asked for facial scanning; if that fails, only ID verification can correct the error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |title=Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content |url=https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |access-date=3 August 2025 |work=404 Media |date=30 July 2025 |archive-url=https://archive. | To view age-restricted content on [[Spotify]], users in the UK are now asked for facial scanning; if that fails, only ID verification can correct the error.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Samantha |title=Spotify Is Forcing Users to Undergo Face Scanning to Access Explicit Content |url=https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |access-date=3 August 2025 |work=404 Media |date=30 July 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260222232121/https://www.404media.co/spotify-uk-age-check-verification-yoti/ |archive-date=22 Feb 2026|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
===YouTube=== | ===YouTube=== | ||
{{Main|YouTube age verification}} | {{Main|YouTube age verification}} | ||
On 30 July 2025, [[YouTube]] responded by announcing its verification system, requesting users for either a government-issued ID, a photo, or credit card, in order to show that users are 18 and older. Age will be estimated through various information, including videos watched, and would lock users flagged below 18 unless they send one of aforementioned proofs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Michael |date=30 Jul 2025 |title=YouTube is Rolling Out A New Controversial Feature |url=https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https:// | On 30 July 2025, [[YouTube]] responded by announcing its verification system, requesting users for either a government-issued ID, a photo, or credit card, in order to show that users are 18 and older. Age will be estimated through various information, including videos watched, and would lock users flagged below 18 unless they send one of aforementioned proofs.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=Michael |date=30 Jul 2025 |title=YouTube is Rolling Out A New Controversial Feature |url=https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251204064951/https://gamerant.com/youtube-new-age-verification-feature-id-recognition/ |archive-date=4 Dec 2025|access-date=14 Aug 2025 |website=GameRant}}</ref> | ||
===Wikipedia=== | ===Wikipedia=== | ||
The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which owns the digital encyclopedia platform [[Wikipedia]], sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On 11 August 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks |archive-url=https:// | The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), which owns the digital encyclopedia platform [[Wikipedia]], sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On 11 August 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260206093500/https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks |archive-date=6 Feb 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/ |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250912103928/https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/ |archive-date=12 Sep 2025}}</ref> | ||
===4Chan=== | ===4Chan=== | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
Attorneys Preston Byrne and Ron Coleman, acting for 4chan, responded publicly to Ofcom’s provisional notice, which accuses the American company of failing to meet information notice requirements and possibly breaching duties related to content moderation. | Attorneys Preston Byrne and Ron Coleman, acting for 4chan, responded publicly to Ofcom’s provisional notice, which accuses the American company of failing to meet information notice requirements and possibly breaching duties related to content moderation. | ||
The attorneys described the UK’s actions as an “illegal campaign of harassment” targeting American tech firms and warned that this extraterritorial enforcement of censorship law was incompatible with the First Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Harper |first=Cindy |date=2025-08-18 |title=4chan Lawyers Fire Back as UK Tries to Censor from Across the Pond |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-lawyers-defend-4chan-against-uk-online-safety-act-enforcement |archive-url=https:// | The attorneys described the UK’s actions as an “illegal campaign of harassment” targeting American tech firms and warned that this extraterritorial enforcement of censorship law was incompatible with the First Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Harper |first=Cindy |date=2025-08-18 |title=4chan Lawyers Fire Back as UK Tries to Censor from Across the Pond |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-lawyers-defend-4chan-against-uk-online-safety-act-enforcement |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250824210758/https://reclaimthenet.org/us-lawyers-defend-4chan-against-uk-online-safety-act-enforcement |archive-date=24 Aug 2025|access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Net}}</ref> | ||
Since enforcement began, the UK’s media regulator Ofcom has reportedly sent formal notices to several US tech companies, instructing them to comply or face penalties. These letters have ignited backlash among American lawmakers, many of whom argue that Britain has crossed a line by trying to dictate speech rules to American businesses and citizens. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, along with other members of Congress, has taken his concerns directly to British ministers, raising objections with Science Secretary Peter Kyle.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Frieth |first=Dan |date=2025-07-31 |title=The White House Puts UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Notice Over UK’s Dangerous Online Censorship Laws |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-uk-clash-over-online-safety-act-free-speech |archive-url=https:// | Since enforcement began, the UK’s media regulator Ofcom has reportedly sent formal notices to several US tech companies, instructing them to comply or face penalties. These letters have ignited backlash among American lawmakers, many of whom argue that Britain has crossed a line by trying to dictate speech rules to American businesses and citizens. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, along with other members of Congress, has taken his concerns directly to British ministers, raising objections with Science Secretary Peter Kyle.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Frieth |first=Dan |date=2025-07-31 |title=The White House Puts UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Notice Over UK’s Dangerous Online Censorship Laws |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-uk-clash-over-online-safety-act-free-speech |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260211191542/https://reclaimthenet.org/us-uk-clash-over-online-safety-act-free-speech |archive-date=11 Feb 2026|access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Internet}}</ref> | ||
==Data breaches including ID documents== | ==Data breaches including ID documents== | ||