The Online Safety Act poses more concerns than initially perceived
In the digital age, the UK's Online Safety Act (OSA) has stirred controversy, raising concerns about its impact on free speech and privacy. The act, which has been in force for two weeks, has led to vast swathes of the internet being censored.
The OSA, in its current form, does not specify how it will address private messaging, leaving tech companies in a state of uncertainty. Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, has the power to force messaging platforms like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram to install software for preventing child-exploitation material. This could potentially end the end-to-end encryption of private messages, a move that WhatsApp has stated could lead to its exit from the UK market.
The OSA's definition of 'illegal content' is broad, resulting in a lot of content being censored automatically and at speed using AI systems. This has led to instances of censorship that extend beyond pornography, encompassing obviously harmless content. Defenders of the act attribute this censorship to bugs or improper implementation, but it is in line with the act's expectations.
The act imposes extensive 'safety' duties on tech companies, and failure to comply results in severe punishment, including criminal sanctions and jail time for executives. Tech companies face fines of up to 10% of their annual global revenue for non-compliance, with some fines amounting to billions of pounds.
In their latest podcast episode, Matthew Lesh and Fraser Myers discuss that the OSA poses significant challenges to both free speech and privacy. They highlight that the act's mechanisms, such as compelling platforms to scan private messages and enforcing strict age verification, undermine users' privacy by intrusive monitoring of content and user data. This invasive content scanning threatens encrypted communications, weakening privacy protections.
Moreover, they emphasize that the act grants broad executive powers to define what constitutes lawful speech, which risks arbitrary censorship and the suppression of legitimate expression. For example, public interest content—including political debates and information about conflicts like Ukraine and Gaza—has been restricted as platforms seek to comply with the act, leading to over-censorship and chilling effects on free speech.
The restrictions disproportionately impact young people and vulnerable users by limiting their ability to freely access or share information online, as the act mandates extensive age verification and content removal for ‘harmful’ material, sometimes overbroadly defined.
The act explicitly envisages a regime of censorship for adults, not just children. A recent poll showed that about one in four people may exit a website due to age-gating, and the remaining 75% will still receive a censored version of the internet.
It's important to note that our website, a platform funded by donations, offers benefits such as ad-free reading, exclusive events, and access to the comments section for regular donors. However, the act's guidance on removing 'psychologically harmful' material has led to the restriction of educational and informative content on our website as well.
In summary, Lesh and Myers critique the Online Safety Act for trading off privacy and freedom of expression on platforms, with unintended consequences including censorship of political speech, erosion of private encrypted chats, and inadequate protection against misinformation despite the heavy-handed controls. These views fit broadly with critical perspectives expressed by civil liberties groups and international observers on the impact of the OSA on human rights in the UK.
- The Online Safety Act (OSA) has raised concerns about its impact on free speech and privacy, as it imposes extensive duties on tech companies, and its broad definition of 'illegal content' has led to the censorship of content beyond pornography, undermining privacy protections and potentially endangering encrypted communications.
- Critics such as Matthew Lesh and Fraser Myers argue that the OSA's mechanisms, like compelling platforms to scan private messages and enforcing strict age verification, pose significant challenges to free speech, as public interest content, including political debates, has been restricted, leading to over-censorship and chilling effects.
- In addition, the OSA grants broad executive powers to define what constitutes lawful speech, which risks arbitrary censorship and suppression of legitimate expression, especially in the context of identity politics and general-news discussions, potentially disproportionately impacting young people and vulnerable users.
