UK has a massive budget problem and they still keep increasing expenditure on surveillance. That social value is negative at this point as its taking money away from critical services. Well done to the Government continuing the worsen debt, health, and wellbeing of the population. A terrorist will kill 5-10 people, failure to protect the health & well being of population (who needs a roof over their head) it just pales in comparison.
Their mass surveillance program doesn’t even work. Like not enough people are watching those video feeds of all the cameras in London to prevent crime or even solve crime. Not to mention UK also has a cop problem. People who are in most need of their protection do not trust the police.
The UK isn’t a Federal Country. It’s a Unitary state with Devolution. I know it is basically a Federal state in Practice (Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont all have varying amounts of autonomy) but the distinction is significant.
and they still keep increasing expenditure on surveillance.
This is the fucked up bit though: The OSA doesn’t put the burden of Age gates on the State. They put it on The Service Provider (Websites and services). This is why so many non-porn forums, lemmy instances, and mastodon instances have either had to shut down or geoblock the UK, all the responsibility is on them to institute this lest they get sued out the arse. They can’t afford to get YOTI or whatever, or don’t have the manpower or money to institute their own system, so they shut down.
It’s also why overblocking is a thing: because the OSA’s official defination of what should be blocked is so vague so the two people who decide what get’s blocked are the Service Provider and the Government effectively in that order. This is why Reddit is blocking things that should not be agegated (like support groups), because the law is so fucking vague, and why sites like Twitter are blocking tweets that don’t need to be blocked under the “news” exception (yes, there is an exception for the news).
All of this, by the way, is because an investment trust and thinktank (yes, a lovely little conflict of interest) called Carnegie United Kingdom Trust pretty much wrote the OSA for the government. As an investment trust, they invest money in things, but being private, they don’t need to tell Joe Public what they invest in, nor to the Investees need to tell us. So basically, they invested in YOTI or some others like it, and are making money from it because so many sites are forced to have it to work in the UK.
And all the other major tech players (Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft) are developing “Digital ID” systems as a “solution” which will not only make it easier to track people for them and the government, but also for advertisers, so they aren’t complaining either.
TL;DR, The UK basically put all the pressure on the Websites so their friends can make loads of money.
Pretty much everything that’s happened since 2014 (Brexit, the erosion of Scotland’s autonomy, the nixing of the GRA, The Covid Response, Liz Truss) has pushed Scotland toward Independence. This isn’t even that big a push for us.
The investment firm/think tank who basically wrote this bill, Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, IS HEAD-QUARTERED IN FUCKIN’ DUNFERMLINE.
How these taxes are applied either reimbursed, taxed directly, or passed on: its still is a tax burden increasing the cost of living. This and previous Government’s have only further worsened the problem. The police state reduces life expectancy.
The Online Safety Act doesn’t apply any new taxes on anyone. It forces service providers (IE: Private Companies) to institute age checks through either AI Face checks or ID either through an in house solution or buying services from a third party (YOTI or similar). It imposes a cost on a business where they have to either spend money setting up an age verification solution or acquire one from a private company. The government doesn’t impose any new taxes on people on businesses with this bill, but instead makes companies who run services give money to other companies to comply with the law.
In short, the censorship isn’t being done directly by the state, it’s being done by private companies under pain of massive fines by the state. Other than suing websites or dealing with court challenges (which is done in house), all the actual legwork is being done by private companies, some of whom, like YOTI, are making handsome amounts of cash.
State created the law. That creates a cost to be recovered. How that cost is recovered is irrelevant, it’s s state mandated cost aka tax.
Just because it’s a state mandated cost doesn’t mean it’s a tax. Tax implies the money goes to the government to pay for goods and services. It’s actually worse than that: it’s a levy.
A levy doesn’t go to the government. A levy goes to whatever person provides the good or service. For example: if I tax alcohol based on alcohol content, the amount of money added to the tax goes to the government. If I place a levy based on alcohol content, the amount of money that is added goes to the person/company selling the booze. An example of a levy is the plastic bag levy, which was put in place to reduce plastic pollution. That money you spend on a bag doesn’t go to the government, it goes to the people you got the bag from, and they can do whatever they want with it, keep it, give it to charity, use it to buy Heroin on the deep web, you name it!
What this law has effectively done has made service providers (not just companies, but whoever runs the site) a choice: They can either develop their own age verification system or pay a company (like YOTI) to do it for them. Most service providers do the latter because they do not have the resources to do the latter.
Does the money go to the government? No (except maybe under the table nudge nudge wink wink), it goes straight to the company. What the government has done is force entities to give a private company money.
It’s a tax in the way, let’s say, a hypothetical Right-Libertarian government might tax you, or even an American Homeowners Association might “tax” you: making you give a private company money.
A burden on the population. No amount of dirty politics changes the fact. Taxes do not all get directly paid to gavernment. Like sales taxes, service tips ect.
The population being the people who run self hosted forums with a certain amount of British users. If you are one of those people, yeah, I’m sorry, I hate it too, but the vast majority of the UK don’t run forums with a large amount of British users. Fun fact, the End users (the people giving away their IDs) aren’t actually paying shit to anyone bar their IDs.
Taxes do not all get directly paid to gavernment. Like sales taxes, service tips ect.
VAT (what you call “sales tax”) does go to the Treasury. Like when you buy something, that 20% extra you paid goes off to the government via the Taxes the shop pays. That’s how VAT works.
Services tips aren’t really a thing in the UK, especially not mandatory ones because food service workers in the UK aren’t exempt from the minimum wage.
Are you even from the UK? Are you even in the UK? Because if you were from here, or even if you spent any amount of time here, you would’ve known the following things:
The United Kingdom doesn’t have Federal Taxes because we’re not a Federal country. Again, we’re a Unitary Country with Devolution.
We don’t use the term “Sales Tax”, we use the term VAT (Value Added Tax). That’s not some special technical term, VAT is common parlance.
Service tips are not compulsory nor expected in any way, shape or form because food service workers in the UK are paid minimum wage with no exceptions. Most places here don’t even have the option to give a tip.
Considering these things, I think you’re American. In that case, please, do us a favour, don’t act like you’re a fucking expert on this. I live in the UK, Scotland to be precise. Shit’s bad, The OSA can get tae fuck, but having Yanks who watched videos made by other yanks who don’t know shit about fuck on the ground lecture me about my own fucking country as if it’s just “America with funny accents” not only doesn’t help, it’s just spreading bullshit.
It’s not a tax burden because it’s not any kind of tax. It’s a cost of doing business, like the cost of keeping and filing accounts. Imposing an additional cost on services which are by-and-large ad-funded/freemium does not have nearly the same effects as funding something out of the treasury.
Doesn’t matter who or how its recovered. Its still a state mandated cost, aka indirect tax.
Every single piece of legislation costs the population. They all add a million cuts to the costs of living. In times of economic crisis these costs need to come down not up.
Edit: addressing the ad revenue stream. Again irrelevant. The ad revenue stream is reduced, some platforms are talking about charging UK users the outcome is the same. Maybe some pull out of the UK or force more ads into the freemium services costing time.
The requirement to file accounts is not a tax. Call things what they are, not whatever you’ve decided they’re similar to in your mind. To do is either confusing or dishonest, depending on whether people ultimately see through what you’re doing or not.
Opposition to this on the basis of finances requires you to actually have some idea of the fiscal outcome. If the number of British children who end up bypassing the rules and viewing genuinely harmful material is small then it will result in lower costs from children traumatised, mentally ill or killing themselves.
I oppose the act because of incalculable costs to privacy, not because it might mean Facebook has to display 10 more ads to someone to maintain their profit margins.
Absolute bollocks. Doesn’t require anything. It only requires personal opinion. Parliament runs on it.
Of course the privacy impact is huge. privacy just does not matter to the average working voting person trying to put groceries on the table.
MPs wont change the stance here because people want to be protected by anonymity. Frankly they won’t change stance at all. Its a certainty at this point.
But it will increase the cost of business which will be passed on and definitely exploited.
“Wont somebody think of the children”
Plenty of children starving in the UK because Government services cant raise revenue to maintain existing levels of public services.
I look to the UK and see the future of western economies. Boned badly, society highly controlled with a large overall tax burden, years of immigration to keep the budget balaced on paper increasing the impact all to delay the fallout. And yes while this will most likely not register a blip to the CPI, its still yet another cut in the wrong direction.
Absolute bollocks. Doesn’t require anything. It only requires personal opinion. Parliament runs on it.
If your opposition is just based on vibes than it can be ignored based on nothing more than that.
You should practice it.
Levy is a Tax.
Oh, you are talking about an actual fee in the legislation, not the cost of contracting with a company that verifies ages.
The cost though is £70 million. Since you raise the prospect of child poverty, the one policy the government needs to reverse to improve child poverty is the two-child benefit cap, which would cost £2.1bn, so this policy costs 3% of a substantive policy on child poverty.
A high estimate for how many deaths could be prevented by lifting the cap is about 300 per year, that I have seen (it’s not really about the cap itself but is about modelling what would happen if Labour were able to reduce child poverty at the same rate it was in 1997-2010, which would presumably include eliminating the cap). 3% of 300 is 9 deaths. While I don’t support the OSA, I think it is completely plausible that a policy which reduces the amount children are looking at extreme violence and advocation of eating disorders and suicide would prevent in the region of 9 deaths per year. About 150 children die each year by suicide (according to statistics, which will undercount the problem because parents as a rule don’t want their child’s death to be recorded as suicide). And saving 9 lives is to bring this policy in line, cost-wise, with an estimate that relates to a whole programme of government, which will in reality cost far more than £2.1bn.
Cost is not the right lens through which to examine the OSA, no matter what your personal opinion tells you.
All of this, by the way, is because an investment trust and thinktank (yes, a lovely little conflict of interest) called Carnegie United Kingdom Trust pretty much wrote the OSA for the government. As an investment trust, they invest money in things, but being private, they don’t need to tell Joe Public what they invest in, nor to the Investees need to tell us. So basically, they invested in YOTI or some others like it, and are making money from it because so many sites are forced to have it to work in the UK.
Can you link more information about this conflict of interest? I can’t find anything about it.
Just a fun fact about “think tanks”, “institutes”, “foundations” and most of those little groups is that when they appear in the news there’s a solid chance that they’re being propped up by corpo money. Every time they appear you need to go double check their bias and you’ll often find that it will be they themselves saying they’re “a conservative think tank” and, if not that, there will likely be a Wikipedia article and a bunch of other sources confirming it. I’m sure there are good ones, but it’s largely just oil companies and banks and big tech funding some corrupt as hell “academics” in order to buy some credibility.
I loved when I got into with one person over climate change and all they could do was send me articles that use oil-backed think tanks and which quoted a climate scientist who’s such a huge liar that whole webpages exist to organize and debunk all his paid-for bullshit.
Economy and climate change is getting worse and they need to protect their rich, so more control of us low lives are needed. They laying the groundwork.
UK has a massive budget problem and they still keep increasing expenditure on surveillance. That social value is negative at this point as its taking money away from critical services. Well done to the Government continuing the worsen debt, health, and wellbeing of the population. A terrorist will kill 5-10 people, failure to protect the health & well being of population (who needs a roof over their head) it just pales in comparison.
Their mass surveillance program doesn’t even work. Like not enough people are watching those video feeds of all the cameras in London to prevent crime or even solve crime. Not to mention UK also has a cop problem. People who are in most need of their protection do not trust the police.
The UK isn’t a Federal Country. It’s a Unitary state with Devolution. I know it is basically a Federal state in Practice (Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont all have varying amounts of autonomy) but the distinction is significant.
This is the fucked up bit though: The OSA doesn’t put the burden of Age gates on the State. They put it on The Service Provider (Websites and services). This is why so many non-porn forums, lemmy instances, and mastodon instances have either had to shut down or geoblock the UK, all the responsibility is on them to institute this lest they get sued out the arse. They can’t afford to get YOTI or whatever, or don’t have the manpower or money to institute their own system, so they shut down.
It’s also why overblocking is a thing: because the OSA’s official defination of what should be blocked is so vague so the two people who decide what get’s blocked are the Service Provider and the Government effectively in that order. This is why Reddit is blocking things that should not be agegated (like support groups), because the law is so fucking vague, and why sites like Twitter are blocking tweets that don’t need to be blocked under the “news” exception (yes, there is an exception for the news).
All of this, by the way, is because an investment trust and thinktank (yes, a lovely little conflict of interest) called Carnegie United Kingdom Trust pretty much wrote the OSA for the government. As an investment trust, they invest money in things, but being private, they don’t need to tell Joe Public what they invest in, nor to the Investees need to tell us. So basically, they invested in YOTI or some others like it, and are making money from it because so many sites are forced to have it to work in the UK.
And all the other major tech players (Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft) are developing “Digital ID” systems as a “solution” which will not only make it easier to track people for them and the government, but also for advertisers, so they aren’t complaining either.
TL;DR, The UK basically put all the pressure on the Websites so their friends can make loads of money.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this shit starts pushing Scotland to want to be its own country again.
Oh my sweet summer child:
Thanks for the info. Now I know.
How these taxes are applied either reimbursed, taxed directly, or passed on: its still is a tax burden increasing the cost of living. This and previous Government’s have only further worsened the problem. The police state reduces life expectancy.
The Online Safety Act doesn’t apply any new taxes on anyone. It forces service providers (IE: Private Companies) to institute age checks through either AI Face checks or ID either through an in house solution or buying services from a third party (YOTI or similar). It imposes a cost on a business where they have to either spend money setting up an age verification solution or acquire one from a private company. The government doesn’t impose any new taxes on people on businesses with this bill, but instead makes companies who run services give money to other companies to comply with the law.
In short, the censorship isn’t being done directly by the state, it’s being done by private companies under pain of massive fines by the state. Other than suing websites or dealing with court challenges (which is done in house), all the actual legwork is being done by private companies, some of whom, like YOTI, are making handsome amounts of cash.
Read my post, you really didn’t read it.
I’ll spell it out.
State created the law. That creates a cost to be recovered. How that cost is recovered is irrelevant, it’s s state mandated cost aka tax.
Just because it’s a state mandated cost doesn’t mean it’s a tax. Tax implies the money goes to the government to pay for goods and services. It’s actually worse than that: it’s a levy.
A levy doesn’t go to the government. A levy goes to whatever person provides the good or service. For example: if I tax alcohol based on alcohol content, the amount of money added to the tax goes to the government. If I place a levy based on alcohol content, the amount of money that is added goes to the person/company selling the booze. An example of a levy is the plastic bag levy, which was put in place to reduce plastic pollution. That money you spend on a bag doesn’t go to the government, it goes to the people you got the bag from, and they can do whatever they want with it, keep it, give it to charity, use it to buy Heroin on the deep web, you name it!
What this law has effectively done has made service providers (not just companies, but whoever runs the site) a choice: They can either develop their own age verification system or pay a company (like YOTI) to do it for them. Most service providers do the latter because they do not have the resources to do the latter.
Does the money go to the government? No (except maybe under the table nudge nudge wink wink), it goes straight to the company. What the government has done is force entities to give a private company money.
It’s a tax in the way, let’s say, a hypothetical Right-Libertarian government might tax you, or even an American Homeowners Association might “tax” you: making you give a private company money.
Levy, lol.
Call it what it is: a tax.
A burden on the population. No amount of dirty politics changes the fact. Taxes do not all get directly paid to gavernment. Like sales taxes, service tips ect.
Edit wrote another post, more depth.
The population being the people who run self hosted forums with a certain amount of British users. If you are one of those people, yeah, I’m sorry, I hate it too, but the vast majority of the UK don’t run forums with a large amount of British users. Fun fact, the End users (the people giving away their IDs) aren’t actually paying shit to anyone bar their IDs.
VAT (what you call “sales tax”) does go to the Treasury. Like when you buy something, that 20% extra you paid goes off to the government via the Taxes the shop pays. That’s how VAT works.
Services tips aren’t really a thing in the UK, especially not mandatory ones because food service workers in the UK aren’t exempt from the minimum wage.
Are you even from the UK? Are you even in the UK? Because if you were from here, or even if you spent any amount of time here, you would’ve known the following things:
Considering these things, I think you’re American. In that case, please, do us a favour, don’t act like you’re a fucking expert on this. I live in the UK, Scotland to be precise. Shit’s bad, The OSA can get tae fuck, but having Yanks who watched videos made by other yanks who don’t know shit about fuck on the ground lecture me about my own fucking country as if it’s just “America with funny accents” not only doesn’t help, it’s just spreading bullshit.
It’s not a tax burden because it’s not any kind of tax. It’s a cost of doing business, like the cost of keeping and filing accounts. Imposing an additional cost on services which are by-and-large ad-funded/freemium does not have nearly the same effects as funding something out of the treasury.
It very much is.
Doesn’t matter who or how its recovered. Its still a state mandated cost, aka indirect tax.
Every single piece of legislation costs the population. They all add a million cuts to the costs of living. In times of economic crisis these costs need to come down not up.
Edit: addressing the ad revenue stream. Again irrelevant. The ad revenue stream is reduced, some platforms are talking about charging UK users the outcome is the same. Maybe some pull out of the UK or force more ads into the freemium services costing time.
The requirement to file accounts is not a tax. Call things what they are, not whatever you’ve decided they’re similar to in your mind. To do is either confusing or dishonest, depending on whether people ultimately see through what you’re doing or not.
Opposition to this on the basis of finances requires you to actually have some idea of the fiscal outcome. If the number of British children who end up bypassing the rules and viewing genuinely harmful material is small then it will result in lower costs from children traumatised, mentally ill or killing themselves.
I oppose the act because of incalculable costs to privacy, not because it might mean Facebook has to display 10 more ads to someone to maintain their profit margins.
You should practice it.
Levy is a Tax.
Absolute bollocks. Doesn’t require anything. It only requires personal opinion. Parliament runs on it.
Of course the privacy impact is huge. privacy just does not matter to the average working voting person trying to put groceries on the table.
MPs wont change the stance here because people want to be protected by anonymity. Frankly they won’t change stance at all. Its a certainty at this point.
But it will increase the cost of business which will be passed on and definitely exploited.
“Wont somebody think of the children”
Plenty of children starving in the UK because Government services cant raise revenue to maintain existing levels of public services.
I look to the UK and see the future of western economies. Boned badly, society highly controlled with a large overall tax burden, years of immigration to keep the budget balaced on paper increasing the impact all to delay the fallout. And yes while this will most likely not register a blip to the CPI, its still yet another cut in the wrong direction.
If your opposition is just based on vibes than it can be ignored based on nothing more than that.
Oh, you are talking about an actual fee in the legislation, not the cost of contracting with a company that verifies ages.
The cost though is £70 million. Since you raise the prospect of child poverty, the one policy the government needs to reverse to improve child poverty is the two-child benefit cap, which would cost £2.1bn, so this policy costs 3% of a substantive policy on child poverty.
A high estimate for how many deaths could be prevented by lifting the cap is about 300 per year, that I have seen (it’s not really about the cap itself but is about modelling what would happen if Labour were able to reduce child poverty at the same rate it was in 1997-2010, which would presumably include eliminating the cap). 3% of 300 is 9 deaths. While I don’t support the OSA, I think it is completely plausible that a policy which reduces the amount children are looking at extreme violence and advocation of eating disorders and suicide would prevent in the region of 9 deaths per year. About 150 children die each year by suicide (according to statistics, which will undercount the problem because parents as a rule don’t want their child’s death to be recorded as suicide). And saving 9 lives is to bring this policy in line, cost-wise, with an estimate that relates to a whole programme of government, which will in reality cost far more than £2.1bn.
Cost is not the right lens through which to examine the OSA, no matter what your personal opinion tells you.
Welcome to politics. Have you never seen parliament debate?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-20/why-uk-inflation-is-so-high-and-what-it-means-for-interest-rates
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/06/stress-crisis-uk-financial-health-housing-insecurity
Is history at this point
Can you link more information about this conflict of interest? I can’t find anything about it.
Just a fun fact about “think tanks”, “institutes”, “foundations” and most of those little groups is that when they appear in the news there’s a solid chance that they’re being propped up by corpo money. Every time they appear you need to go double check their bias and you’ll often find that it will be they themselves saying they’re “a conservative think tank” and, if not that, there will likely be a Wikipedia article and a bunch of other sources confirming it. I’m sure there are good ones, but it’s largely just oil companies and banks and big tech funding some corrupt as hell “academics” in order to buy some credibility.
I loved when I got into with one person over climate change and all they could do was send me articles that use oil-backed think tanks and which quoted a climate scientist who’s such a huge liar that whole webpages exist to organize and debunk all his paid-for bullshit.
The video that lead me down this rabbit hole.
Economy and climate change is getting worse and they need to protect their rich, so more control of us low lives are needed. They laying the groundwork.