The UK’s Online Safety Act appears fundamentally misunderstood. Critics argue its age verification loopholes render it ineffective, as noted by a recent incident involving simply circumventing restrictions with a picture of Norman Reedus or using a VPN. Opponents claim it infringes on free speech and internet culture, ultimately compromising child safety—a contradiction of its intent.

In a recent statement to Sky News, Secretary of State Peter Kyle charged those seeking to roll back the law with supporting “extreme pornographers” and “predators”. Kyle’s stance aligns with a major petition garnering over 300,000 signatures, challenging the effectiveness of the legislation.

“If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act, you are on the side of predators,” Kyle declared on social media, drawing criticism for broadly equating critics with offenders. His, and others’, perspectives indicate a persistent belief that any opposition to the Act inherently supports harmful online content.

However, many digital rights advocates argue such policies reduce forums, heritage sites, and independent projects to failure, fostering an environment fraught with censorship and limited access to information, rather than ensuring safety.