![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/trollfac-uk.png\")
The UK\u2019s Online Safety Act (OSA) claims to protect children but has faced fierce criticism for censoring everything from legitimate news reporting from war zones, to critical discussion of the Act itself.<\/p>\nThe UK\u2019s Online Safety Act (OSA) claims to protect children but has faced fierce criticism for censoring everything from legitimate news reporting from war zones, to critical discussion of the Act itself.<\/p>\n
There are many problems, not least a requirement for adults in the UK to prove their identity when accessing sites meeting criteria dictated by Ofcom. Large sites, many in the United States, face huge fines for allowing children to access age-inappropriate content. <\/p>\n
This means that unverified adults are treated as children with the same content restrictions. Ofcom\u2019s global threats have led some sites to conclude that the safest option is to ban UK visitors altogether.<\/p>\n
Successive UK governments understood there were risks, or rather, they were informed of the risks and went ahead regardless. Whether the internet is any safer is almost impossible to measure; the same can\u2019t be said for the hours wasted or lost, and the corresponding increases in blood pressure, all thanks to artificial restrictions that punish those who value their privacy. <\/p>\n
Guided by the mantra, \u201ca problem shared is a problem halved\u201d those who air their OSA grievances in public find themselves presented with a 50\/50 ultimatum. According to Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, those with an opinion on the legislation fall into two categories: <\/p>\n
1) People who want to protect kids and 2) People who side with online predators.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
![\"osa-predator\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/osa-predator.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\nThe imposition of a binary choice is a well-worn political tactic. It aims to shut down dissent and\/or discredit the speaker; in this case ordinary members of the public branded \u2018predator enablers\u2019 by a government minister.<\/p>\n
VPN users warranted direct advice; no allegations this time but a suggestion that, just like the unverified, VPN users aren\u2019t helping to keep children safe.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
![\"vpn-uk\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/vpn-uk.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\nIn the event that the above fails to silence the troublemakers, the UK government has recently been discovered filing requests with overseas companies to delete posts made by UK citizens\u2019 criticizing certain aspects of government policy. A United States Department of State report<\/a>, criticizing the UK government for degrading the right to freedom of expression, remains stubbornly accessible. <\/p>\n Of course, attempting to silence the State Department would be a truly historic mistake, especially in the wake of comments made by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley. <\/p>\n Last summer Rowley threatened to \u201cthrow the full force of the law at people\u201d for unacceptable social media comments, warning that \u201cwhether you\u2019re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.\u201d<\/p>\n Widely interpreted as a warning to citizens of the United States, and by extension a direct threat to their constitutional rights, U.S. officials intervened. Congressman Keith Self warned that \u201charassing Americans will do absolutely nothing to resolve Great Britain\u2019s internal issues\u201d and risks damaging the US\/UK alliance.<\/p>\n As the United States attempts to introduce home turf pirate site blocking from three<\/a> different<\/a> directions<\/a>, the UK government is already preparing to take site blocking to the next level. <\/p>\n Thanks to provisions in the Online Safety Act, the UK will soon begin drawing on 15 years of pirate site blocking experiences, to block regular sites that fail to meet their \u2018obligations\u2019 as laid out in the legislation<\/a>.<\/p>\n Ofcom\u2019s stated purpose is to serve the public, within duties defined by parliament, independently, using funds provided by the companies in the sectors it regulates. As regulator, Ofcom doesn\u2019t need permission from the public to start blocking sites, although general approval would likely make the process less controversial. <\/p>\n With the whole world watching and various platforms waiting to see if Ofcom\u2019s threats of global enforcement can be ignored, there\u2019s little room for error.<\/p>\n In the current climate any blocking could be perceived as a further restriction of free speech, or even straightforward censorship. The conundrum is how to make site blocking appear less like censorship while satisfying the people that it\u2019s absolutely necessary. It\u2019s a big ask, but not impossible.<\/p>\n In 2012 when the major recording labels obtained their first UK site blocking injunction on copyright grounds, they could\u2019ve picked a no-name MP3 download site and walked away with an easy win. They picked The Pirate Bay instead, and not just because of the site\u2019s profile and unparalleled infamy. <\/p>\n #1 Perfect Candidate:<\/strong> After years in the headlines, The Pirate Bay\u2019s belligerent stance was well understood and at this point, helpfully predictable. First, there was never any chance of TPB spontaneously complying with copyright law. Since blocking injunctions came to exist for the purpose of tackling uncooperative entities, no candidate was more perfectly matched than the most uncooperative pirate site in the world.<\/p>\n #2 No Appearance? No Win:<\/strong> The odds of TPB\u2019s operators making an appearance at the High Court in London were always vanishingly slim, but not just for the reasons one might expect. The site\u2019s alleged operators were never served in the blocking case, and they never appeared at the hearing. In fact, the site wasn\u2019t represented in any way, at any stage. <\/p>\n #3 If Done Right, No Defense:<\/strong> After it was determined that the law didn\u2019t require TPB\u2019s operators to be named as defendants, they were effectively excluded from the process. The ISPs were the defendants in this \u201cno fault\u201d case, and when they were ordered to block TPB, the terms of the injunction were those previously agreed in discussion with the labels.<\/p>\n Describing this as an \u2018easy win\u2019 would be a disservice to the work put in by the labels. Nothing was left to chance and the end result spoke for itself. The Pirate Bay and its function needed no introduction, and among supporters and opponents alike, acceptance that it exists for the purpose of infringement on a massive scale, was never in doubt. <\/p>\n That the process was entirely one-sided was neither here nor there. Nobody was surprised by the choice of target or the eventual outcome; in the bigger picture, controversy was kept to a minimum.<\/p>\n Now it\u2019s Ofcom\u2019s turn to convince, or simply inform the public, that blocking non-pirate sites benefits everyone. On paper, the notorious 4chan forum ticks all the right boxes and presumably no match for the well-resourced Ofcom.<\/p>\n One can only imagine the reaction at 4chan when Ofcom advised that it had new obligations under a foreign law. Section 9(2) of the Act requires certain platforms to undertake an illegal content risk assessment, to assess the risks of users encountering \u2018illegal\u2019 content on their platforms. <\/p>\n The requirements were published<\/a> February 24, 2025, and the \u2018Illegal Content Duties\u2019 came into effect on 17 March 2025. On April 14, Ofcom issued a \u2018formal information notice\u2019 to 4chan demanding a copy of its Illegal Content Risk Assessment and not surprisingly, received no reply.<\/p>\n In common with The Pirate Bay, 4chan\u2019s non-compliance was almost<\/em> inevitable. When accompanied by threats to disrupt its business, including by obtaining a court order to compel payment processors, advertisers, and hosting providers to stop doing business, while levying fines of \u00a320,000 per day, non-compliance was effectively guaranteed. In this respect, 4chan\u2019s response was entirely predictable.<\/p>\n As highlighted previously, cases are more easily won when it\u2019s understood that the defendant won\u2019t make an appearance. We can safely assume that 4chan has the same number of tickets to London as it does Illegal Content Risk Assessments so, no, it will not attend. So far, so good then? Not exactly. <\/p>\n Ofcom launched its 4chan investigation on June 10, to determine compliance with various duties under the Online Safety Act. <\/p>\n Did 4chan adequately respond to a statutory information request? Has it conducted and kept a record of its illegal content risk assessment? Is it complying with its safety duties, including protecting its users from \u2018illegal\u2019 content? <\/p>\n Ofcom currently has no answers to these questions but did learn something new this week. Not only has 4chan hired extremely capable attorneys in response to Ofcom\u2019s threats, any action by Ofcom will be resisted in the United States under Federal Law. <\/p>\n Since Ofcom\u2019s threats are viewed as undermining 4chan\u2019s constitutional rights, its attorneys believe that no court in America will allow foreign penalties to be enforced in the United States. Once people begin speaking about that, the damage will have been done.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Given the offense caused by last year\u2019s threats by UK police against U.S. citizens, and similar events since then, the final three paragraphs of the statement above seem especially relevant. <\/p>\n By selecting 4chan as a potential target for enforcement, knowing all too well it would refuse to comply, a stand-off has been engineered between UK censorship measures nobody asked for, and the constitutional rights of all Americans.<\/p>\n If the hallmarks of the win in The Pirate Bay case were predictability, inability to mount any defense, and the avoidance of controversy, this is only just short of a complete disaster. .<\/p>\n Further escalation at the political level in the event Ofcom digs in, may demand intervention at the highest level. For Prime Minister Keir Starmer, that does not bode well<\/p>\n First, Ofcom is independent, so that may not even be possible. Second, consider this recent exchange between JD Vance and Keir Starmer himself on the erosion of free speech in the UK.<\/p>\n Vance:<\/strong> \u201cWe also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British. Of course, what the British do in their own country is up to them, but they also affect American technology companies and by extension American citizens. So that is something that we\u2019ll talk about today at lunch.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Starmer<\/strong>: \u201cWe\u2019ve had free speech for a very long time in the United Kingdom and uh..uh.. and it will last for a very, very long time. Well no, I mean we certainly wouldn\u2019t want to reach across to US citizens\u2026and we don\u2019t\u2026and that\u2019s absolutely right.<\/p>\n Ofcom begs to differ, clearly; so who is in charge here? Why doesn\u2019t the Prime Minister know that the UK is actively \u201creaching across to US citizens?\u201d Unfortunately, Ofcom has a reputation for not backing down. On the plus side, it hasn\u2019t imposed any penalties to back down from yet, so there is that.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\nNo Border Too Distant<\/h2>\n
Site Blocking For The People?<\/h2>\n
The Pirate Bay: Default Poster Child of Piracy Blocking<\/h2>\n
4chan: Poster Child of Regular Site Blocking?<\/h2>\n
4chan Unlikely to Attend Court in the UK<\/h2>\n
New Jurisdiction, Different Ball Game<\/h2>\n
![\"ofcom-4chan\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/ofcom-4chan.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\nWho\u2019s in Charge of Government Policy?<\/h2>\n
![\"safety\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/safety.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\n