Social media giants face fines over "overzealous" censorship under Online Safety Act
By lauraharris // 2025-08-14
Copy
 
  • Social media companies like Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok risk heavy fines for "overzealous" enforcement of the U.K.'s Online Safety Act, which has led to the suppression of lawful political content.
  • The Online Safety Act is primarily designed to shield children from harmful content (e.g., pornography, suicide, violence), but its cautious implementation has inadvertently impacted legitimate public discourse.
  • Ministers have warned platforms not to misuse the law to suppress free expression, emphasizing that the Act also mandates the protection of freedom of speech alongside child safety.
  • U.S. Vice President JD Vance warned the U.K. against descending into censorship, while U.K. politicians and campaigners echoed concerns, calling the Act a potential threat to democratic freedoms.
  • Civil liberties advocates claimed the Act has already created a "childproofed" internet, limiting adults' access to lawful content unless they undergo invasive age checks.
Social media giants, including Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok, face the threat of heavy fines for "overzealous" censorship under the Online Safety Act (OSA) of the United Kingdom. The OSA, which recently came into force, is designed primarily to safeguard children and vulnerable users from exposure to harmful content such as pornography, suicide encouragement and extreme violence. However, its implementation is having unintended consequences – with lawful political speech and public-interest discussions being suppressed under overly cautious enforcement protocols. Government ministers have warned tech giants that they must not use the legislation as a "blunt tool" to suppress political or controversial debate, following backlash from campaigners and lawmakers over social media companies limiting access to material, including parliamentary discussions on sensitive topics such as grooming gangs. Ministers are concerned that companies, many of which have expressed skepticism about the OSA, are being "overzealous" in their moderation practices – in some cases removing content that does not fall within the scope of the legislation. Additionally, the British Department for Science, Innovation and Technology – which is responsible for the OSA – said firms must balance their legal duty to protect children from harmful material with their obligation to uphold freedom of expression. (Related: TYRANNY: Online Safety ACT explicitly allows media to publish LIES as facts.) "As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression. Failure to meet either obligation can lead to severe penalties, including fines of up to 10 per cent of global revenue or £18 million ($24 million), whichever is greater," a spokesperson for the department said. "The Act is not designed to censor political debate and does not require platforms to age gate any content other than those which present the most serious risks to children, such as pornography or suicide and self-harm content," The government insists the OSA does not require platforms to block political speech or age-gate general debate, and it expects companies to refine their systems accordingly. "Platforms have had several months to prepare for this law. It is a disservice to their users to hide behind deadlines as an excuse for failing to properly implement it," the spokesperson added.

Vance warns U.K. against "dark path" of censorship

During a visit to the U.K. this August, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance warned British ministers that the U.K. risks heading down a "dark path" of censorship if it continues to tighten online regulation. Vance said Western democracies had grown "too comfortable with censoring" rather than engaging with differing views. Julia Lopez, the shadow science secretary, echoed these concerns and warned that Labour must avoid using the law as a "blunt tool" that curtails public freedoms. "The Government must do everything to ensure the Act doesn't become a blunt tool to block people’s freedom," she warned. "But given their approach and attitude towards free speech so far, it's hard to believe they will do the right thing." Digital rights campaigners said the law's effects are already being felt. Rebecca Vincent, interim director of Big Brother Watch, said the OSA's "biggest impact" was on "everyone's right to free speech." "Online censorship is rapidly on the rise and we're now in a ludicrous situation where all U.K. internet users only have access to a childproofed version of the web unless we're willing to undergo intrusive age verification processes," she said. "Unfortunately, Vance is right when he says free speech in Britain is in retreat." Watch this video about how Canada is watching how the U.K. is implementing the OSA for its own version called Bill C-63.
This video is from the Rick Langley channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Britain's new Online Safety Act is forcing small websites to shut down.

U.K. Reddit users now required to verify their age under new Online Safety Act.

U.K.'s Online Safety Act: A death knell for small websites and free expression.

Sources include: DailySceptic.org Telegraph.co.uk Brighteon.com
Copy