European Online Safety Act

🔧 Article status notice: This article heavily relies on AI/LLMs

This article has been marked because its heavy use of LLM generated text may affect its percieved or actual reliability and credibility.

---

To contact a moderator for removal of this notice once the article's issues have been resolved, you can use the #appeals channel on our Discord server (Join using this link]) or use the talk pages on the wiki and leave a message to any of the moderators. List of current moderators.

---

Learn more ▼

Common issues include:

• affect the validity of the claims made (e.g. by making unsubstanciated assertions, not citing sources).
• make use of tone not complaint with the wiki's editorial guidelines
• be overly extensive in areas that are not relevant to the mission statement
• come across as automatically generated, bringing the Wiki's credibility into question

As a result this article needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. How You Can Improve This Article

1. Replace or supplement weak citations with credible, verifiable sources.
2. Remove content you determine to be inaccurate
3. Link the problem to modern forms of consumer protection concerns, such as privacy violations, barriers to repair, or ownership rights
4. Replace language that that is non-compliant with the editorial guidelines of this wiki.

As the article incorporates text from a large language model, it may include inaccuracies or hallucinated information. Please keep this in mind if you are using this article as a source for infromation.

❗Article Status Notice: Unacceptable Tone/Word Usage

This article needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Specifically it uses wording throughout that is non-compliant with the Editorial guidelines of this wiki.

Learn more ▼

How You Can Help: If this is a non-Theme article (See: Article types):

• Persuasive language should not be used in the Wiki's voice. Avoid loaded words, or the causing of unnecessary offense, wherever possible.
• No direct attacks on named individuals or companies. Malice may be attributed to bad and proven offenders, but only through the use of quotation and citation - never in the Wiki's voice.

If this is a Theme article:

• Where argumentation is used make sure it is clear and direct but not inflammatory. Avoid strong language, or causing unnecessary offense.
• No direct attacks on named individuals or companies. Malice may be attributed to bad and proven offenders, in a formal and calm manner.

This notice will be removed once sufficient documentation has been added to establish the systemic nature of these issues. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, visit the Discord (join here) and post to the #appeals channel.

Overview

The UK Online Safety Act 2023 is an act passed by the United Kingdom Parliament that gives the government of the United Kingdom to suppress and record online content that the United Kingdom government deems harmful to children. The UK government cite states that as of March 2025, platforms are now required to use age assuring technology to prevent underage users from being exposed to adult content such as pornography, hateful content, or content which encourages suicide, self harm, or eating disorders. In practice the act is likely to affect both children and adults.

(This is re-edition of the contents displayed in fightchatcontrol.eu)

How it works

1. UK Online Safety Act (OSA)

• Age Verification Enforcement: The OSA Requires online platforms to require age verification for users attempting to access specific types of content. Frequently, the verification process is outsourced to third-party companies. These companies may request sensitive personal and biometric information—including facial scans, identity documents, and financial data.
• Privacy Risks: The absence of a public registry or certification standard for age verification providers means there is significant potential for misuse or mishandling of user data. Many providers operate overseas with limited regulation and weak data protection practices, creating major privacy vulnerabilities.
• Impact on Users: U.K Citizens have had to provide private details where they previously didn't to use social media platforms or dating apps.
• Surveillance and Content Moderation: The OSA expands monitoring of users of various social media platforms, requiring platforms to scan encrypted messages for illegal content. these requirements could technically compromise privacy and security.
• Free Expression: Stringent moderation and age-gating may restrict information access for all users (including adults who refuse to submit sensitive data). These measures risk self-censorship and suppressing open debate, even affecting democratic participation when the act obliges "democratically important" content to not be removed.

2. EU Digital Services Act (DSA)

• Child Safety Provisions: The DSA requires platforms serving minors to implement robust, privacy-focused safeguards—like age verification or estimation. The European Commission recommends “safety and privacy by design,” but these are guidelines rather than strict rules.
• Decentralized Enforcement: Responsibility for implementing these safeguards lies with national regulators, resulting in potentially inconsistent application across EU countries.
• Content Removal and Censorship: The Act defines "illegal content" broadly, including violations of any EU or national laws—even future legislation. Platforms must remove such content or face penalties, including fines of up to 6% of global annual revenue.
• Cross-Border Effects: The strictest national speech laws in the EU can set the censorship standard for the entire bloc, impacting all European users.
• Practical Examples: Actual cases, such as the prosecution of Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, show how national regulations can be invoked to suppress legitimate political or religious speech across borders.

Why it is a problem

Mass Surveillance

Every private message, photo, and file scanned automatically: no suspicion required, no exceptions*, even encrypted communications.

*EU politicians exempt themselves from this surveillance under "professional secrecy" rules. They get privacy. You and your family do not. Demand fairness.

Breaking Encryption

Weakening or breaking end-to-end encryption exposes everyone’s communications—including sensitive financial, medical, and private data—to hackers, criminals, and hostile actors.

Fundamental Rights

Undermines your fundamental rights to privacy and data protection, as guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter—rights considered core to European democratic values.

False Positives

Automated scanners routinely misidentify innocent content, such as vacation photos or private jokes, as illegal, putting ordinary people at risk of false accusations and damaging investigations.

Ineffective Child Protection

Child protection experts and organizations, including the UN, warn that mass surveillance fails to prevent abuse and actually makes children less safe—by weakening security for everyone and diverting resources from proven protective measures.

Global Precedent

Creates a dangerous global precedent enabling authoritarian governments, citing EU policy, to roll out intrusive surveillance at home, undermining privacy and free expression worldwide.

Examples & Problems

Numerous grassroots movements, digital rights organizations, and news outlets across Europe are actively opposing Online Safety laws such as the UK's Online Safety Act (OSA) and the EU's proposed Chat Control regulation. Their main concerns include mass surveillance, loss of online anonymity, undermining of encryption, heightened risk of identity theft, and chilling of free speech online.

Key Campaigns & Movements

Fightchatcontrol.EU

A leading citizen-driven campaign against the EU's "Chat Control" legislation, Fightchatcontrol.eu tracks Member States' stances, shares news, provides tools to email EU representatives, and highlights privacy dangers—including mass scanning of all private digital communications (even encrypted ones) and the threat to fundamental rights under the EU Charter . The platform explicitly states its mission is to protect privacy and digital security and empower individuals to oppose these laws. The movement is widely referenced in online communities, such as /r/ireland, for its clear mapping of EU member positions and practical activism risks .

Open Rights Group, EFF, and Wikimedia Foundation

The Open Rights Group has created extensive resources and campaigns against the UK’s Online Safety Act, especially targeting the threats to end-to-end encryption and freedom of expression.

On the other hand, The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argues the Act fails child protection while threatening privacy and restricting free expression—recent weeks have seen VPN downloads spike in response to the law, with public petitions against it amassing hundreds of thousands of signatures

Lastly, The Wikimedia Foundation (operator of Wikipedia) challenged aspects of the Online Safety Act in UK courts , warning that it forces platforms to violate their own privacy commitments and risks eroding internet freedom. Although their recent challenge failed , it highlights deep dissent among global online communities, .

Prominent Articles and Reports

Aardwolf Security: Privacy Nightmare

Details how age verification under the UK’s OSA requires millions of adults to share facial scans or ID documents with third-party firms. Experts warn this creates massive biometric and ID databases vulnerable to hacks, calling them “honeypots for cybercriminals,” and stating that breached biometric data can never truly be changed, exposing people to lifelong privacy.

Techdirt: Exactly the Disaster Critics Predicted

Demonstrates how OSA’s age checks led to an explosion in VPN usage, and documents how intrusive verification extends to unrelated online communities (from support forums to Wikipedia). The author argues these laws force the creation of detailed personal activity trails, threaten online anonymity, chill free speech, and drive users to less secure services.

CityAM, Novara Media, and Reuters

CityAM and Novara Media document insecurity and censorship, showing a massive surge in demand for VPNs and fake ID services in Britain, and report on broad alliances and petitions calling for repeal—proving strong civil opposition from both ends of the political spectrum.

Reuters and other news outlets highlight the risk to free speech, with platforms like X warning about indiscriminate censorship and loss of safe online spaces.

Core Privacy Problems and Loss of Online Anonymity

• Compulsory use of government IDs, biometrics, and facial recognition destroys basic online anonymity—users are permanently linked to every activity, risking exposure and discrimination .
• Centralizing sensitive data creates irresistible targets for hacking and identity theft. Unlike passwords, breached biometric data cannot be “reset” .
• Laws treat encrypted messaging as subject to backdoor scanning or “client-side” surveillance, undermining technical privacy even globally .
• Age-gating and content moderation force many smaller sites to shut down and chill participation in support, activist, and political communities, especially those depending on anonymity for safety

Free Speech and Internet Values

By restricting anonymous communication, the Act undermines foundational principles of the internet: free speech, open debate, and the right to dissent without fear of retaliation . Ambiguous definitions of “harmful” content, coupled with automated scanning systems, risk fostering over-censorship and generating false accusations that can silence legitimate expression and political activism . The move toward large-scale surveillance not only threatens civil liberties within Europe but also sets a troubling global precedent, with EU and UK regulations potentially inspiring authoritarian regimes to adopt similar measures that curtail free speech worldwide .

Useful sites

• https://noyb.eu/en/projects
• https://edri.org/