The UK’s Online Safety Act forces small sites like Microcosm to shut down, citing disproportionate liability and risk under the new law.
DIDI RANKOVIC
If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.
The UK’s sweeping online censorship law – the Online Safety Act – that will be enforced from March of next year is already claiming its first victims.
The new legislative landscape in the country is now not providing any kind of safety for hundreds of small websites, including non-profit forums, that will have to shut down, unable to comply with the act – specifically, faced with what reports refer to as “disproportionate personal liability.”
The fines go up to the equivalent of USD 25 million, while the law also introduces new criminal offenses.
Earlier in the week, the act’s enforcer, Ofcom, published dozens of measures that online services are supposed to implement by March 16, including naming a person responsible – and accountable – for making sure a site or platform complies.
The law is presented as a new way to efficiently tackle illegal content, and in particular, provide new ways to ensure the safety of children online, including by age verification (“age checking”).
Opponents, however, reject it as “a censor’s charter” designed to force companies to step up monitoring and censorship on their platforms, including by scanning private communications and undermining encryption.
But another way that concrete harm can be done to the online ecosystem, while declaratively seeking to prevent harm, is now emerging with the example of small and community sites, where those running them are unwilling to take on the massive risk related both to the fines, and criminal responsibility in case they fail to “moderate” according to the act’s provisions.
UK press reports about one of the first examples of this, as the non-profit free hosting service Microcosm and its 300 sites – among them community hubs and forums dedicated to topics like cycling and tech – will go down in March, unable to live up to the “disproportionately high personal liability.”
“It’s too vague and too broad and I don’t want to take that personal risk,” Microcosm’s Dee Kitchen is quoted.
Although the general impression has been that only large corporate services will be affected by the law, in reality requirements and penalties for them are higher, but Ofcom made it clear that “very small micro businesses” are also subject to the legislation.
Microcosm’s decision illustrates what that will look like in practice, as sites – big and small – consider finding hosting overseas, or even leaving the UK market.
This article (UK’s Online Censorship Law Drives Small Websites to Shut Down) was created and published by Reclaim The Net and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Didi Rankovic
*****
RELATED
What Tech Company Would Do Business in Britain?
FRED DE FOSSARD
The Online Safety Act is kicking in and the reality of having an internet governed by Ofcom is starting to materialise; no matter what the Act’s advocates say, this reality isn’t pretty. Regulations like the Online Safety Act make Britain a bad place to do business and to be online, with two recent stories illustrating exactly how.
The first is the news that Sam Altman’s OpenAI, the organisation behind ChatGPT, will not launch its new text-to-video AI tool, Sora, in the UK. Britain, according to OpenAI, is no longer a good place to operate AI technology, thanks to the Online Safety Act, which has given Ofcom huge powers to regulate online communications, including the use of generative chatbots, in which OpenAI specialise.
This puts Britain in the same sorry position as the European Union, whose strict AI regulations have had the double effect of suffocating any domestic European AI industry and deterring global innovators in AI from offering their products in Europe. This is more embarrassing as, only recently, Britain could boast that it had a more permissive regulatory regime for AI and this is why Google’s AI tool, Gemini, was available in the UK but not in the EU. Thanks to the Online Safety Act, we have lost this competitive advantage. We have chosen to leave the EU, then introduce regulations which keep us stuck in the Brussels quagmire.
The second case is smaller but could be repeated thousands of times over in the future. The manager of the London Fixed Gear and Single Speed forum announced that he would shut the forum because of the Online Safety Act. As the manager of an online forum with around 70,000 members, the new law means he is personally liable for the posts on the site, and the costs of complying with the new laws mean maintaining such a forum is simply not worth the time and risk.
The manager, known as Velocio on the site, wrote:
I can’t afford what is likely tens of thousand to go through all the legal hoops here over a prolonged period of time … this is not a venture that can afford compliance costs… what remains is a disproportionately high personal liability for me, and one that could easily be weaponised by disgruntled people who are banned for their egregious behaviour (in the years running fora I’ve been signed up to porn sites, stalked IRL and online, subject to death threats, had fake copyright takedown notices, an attempt to delete the domain name with ICANN… all from those whom I’ve moderated to protect community members)… I do not see an alternative to shuttering it.
Is he being risk averse? Perhaps. We do not know how consistently this law will be enforced, after all. However, the expansive nature of this law is clear, and Velocio will hardly be the only person running an online message board in his free time to think that it isn’t worth the hassle anymore. The message to tech companies and forum managers is the same: don’t bother doing business in Britain. It’s just too difficult.
Before this law was enacted, the Government was warned that these kinds of outcomes were possible. Think tanks, tech industry associations and free speech campaigners all warned that this would cause a chilling effect, stifling the online economy, eroding freedom of speech online, and deterring investment in Britain. The Government – then Conservative, but with full support of Labour in opposition – laughed these concerns out of the room. How wrong they were.
Government ministers even suggested that the new laws would be good for the economy because it would encourage a boom in the online safety-tech sector. That is, a sector entirely dependent on enforcing government regulations. Former minister Paul Scully boasted in 2023 that ‘The UK safety tech sector is meeting this challenge. It is one of the fastest growing tech sectors in the UK, with revenues increasing 20% in the last year alone to £456m, and it now employs over 3,300 staff across the UK.’
No wonder Britain’s productivity remains flat when government ministers boast about the revenues of a rent-seeking sector delivering the state’s objectives, instead of finding ways to increase genuine innovation and productivity in the private sector.
While it would be better if the Online Safety Act were never introduced, it was supported by the vast majority of parliamentarians. The Act’s advocates also claimed that the law commands some 80% public support, according to YouGov data. It was inevitable that some kind of regulation was on its way, and it was understandable that Parliament decided to listen to the concerns of many parents who feared for their children’s wellbeing in the social media age.
But the Online Safety Act being implemented today was neither inevitable nor desirable. Parliament has given a green light to Ofcom to prosecute speech across the whole internet. Ofcom has announced a litany of 40 new requirements for all online platforms to follow, proudly saying that ‘this is just the beginning’ and they should expect more rules in the years to come. Indeed, in its letter to AI companies, Ofcom says that it will demand named executives be accountable for online harms and raises the threat of hefty fines to those who do not comply. If only the state embraced accountability in the same way.
Following the summer’s riots, the Government seeks new ways of strengthening this law to suppress speech online. This is regulatory decadence at its worst. Ofcom is becoming one of the most powerful regulators in the country, and one of the strongest signs to stay away from the British economy. Until these regulators are brought to heel and these laws repealed, British prosperity will continue to suffer.
This article (What tech company would do business in Britain?) was created and published by CAPX and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Frank de Fossard
*****
The Censorship of Information!
WATCH:
Featured image: Reddit
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply