- The British Parliament debated repealing the Online Safety Act (OSA) after a 160,000-signature petition but rejected calls to roll it back, instead advocating for even stricter controls on VPNs, age verification and AI chatbots.
- Critics argue the OSA, designed to protect children from harmful content, has become a broad censorship tool, suppressing lawful political speech and forcing the closure of small online forums due to heavy compliance burdens.
- In response to the OSA, VPN usage in the U.K. surged by 700%, leading some MPs to propose regulating the privacy tools themselves as a way to enforce the Act’s restrictions.
- The parliamentary debate revealed significant concern that the law is eroding privacy and free speech, with critics drawing parallels to historical censorship and warning it sets a dangerous global precedent for digital control under the guise of safety.
- Despite acknowledging problems, the government is moving to expand the OSA’s scope, targeting encrypted messaging and AI, while opposition from the public and international figures like U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance highlights a growing divide over digital freedoms.
The British Parliament recently debated the repeal of its controversial Online Safety Act (OSA), responding to a public petition that garnered over 160,000 signatures. Yet rather than addressing concerns over government overreach, Members of Parliament (MPs) doubled down on calls for stricter internet controls like expanding age verification, cracking down on virtual private network (VPN) usage and demanding artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots be policed like digital trespassers.
The debate was held in a sparsely attended Westminster Hall on Monday, Dec. 15. It revealed a widening chasm between public demands for digital freedom and political insistence on tighter regulation – raising alarms about censorship, surveillance, and the erosion of privacy in one of the world’s oldest democracies.
The OSA, enacted to shield children from harmful content such as pornography and violent extremism, has instead morphed into a sprawling censorship apparatus, forcing lawful political discussions and independent forums offline while empowering tech giants to act as arbiters of truth. Civil liberties groups warn that the law has effectively “childproofed” the internet for adults, requiring invasive age checks just to access basic content.
VPN usage surged by 700% in the UK following the OSA’s implementation, as citizens scrambled to bypass restrictions. This prompted MPs like Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) and Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) to suggest regulating the privacy tools themselves.
Critics argue the OSA’s vague language invites overzealous enforcement. Small forums, including fan communities and local message boards, have shuttered under the weight of compliance burdens, with one administrator of a message board for the soccer club Sunderland AFC nearly closing shop after struggling to navigate the British Office of Communications‘ (Ofcom) labyrinthine guidelines.
The OSA’s war on AI, VPNs and encryption
MP Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) acknowledged these concerns but stopped short of endorsing repeal, instead proposing watered-down reforms. Meanwhile, MPs like Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) bizarrely defended censorship by citing hypothetical lies – such as claims she had “pink eyes” – as justification for preemptive content removal.
The debate also exposed growing government paranoia toward emerging technologies. MP Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) warned of AI chatbots manipulating children, while MP Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) demanded faster regulation of generative AI – despite no evidence these tools pose unique harms. The push to label bots as if they were hazardous machinery underscores a fundamental misunderstanding of the internet’s organic, decentralized nature.
Historical parallels loom large. The OSA echoes past attempts to control communication under the guise of safety – from the Printing Ordinance of 1643, which required government approval for published works, to modern China’s Great Firewall. Yet unlike those overtly authoritarian models, the OSA operates under the veneer of democratic consent, with MPs like Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) insisting it’s merely about applying “safety features” to the digital world.
As Downing Street prepares to expand the OSA’s reach targeting VPNs, encrypted messaging and AI, the global implications are stark. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance has already warned against Britain’s descent into censorship, while privacy advocates fear the OSA could inspire similar laws worldwide.
BrightU.AI‘s Enoch engine warns that the OSA threatens privacy and free speech by enabling government surveillance and censorship under the guise of “safety,” eroding democratic freedoms and paving the way for authoritarian control. It sets a dangerous precedent for globalist overreach, aligning with broader agendas of digital tyranny and suppression of dissent.
With Ofcom now researching VPN usage and age verification firms lobbying for official oversight, the battle lines are clear: either citizens retain the right to navigate the internet freely, or they submit to a sanitized, government-approved version of reality. For now, the OSA stands unchallenged by Parliament – but not by the public.
Watch this video about the OSA and the demolition of the internet.
This video is from The Prisoner channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
ReclaimTheNet.org
BiometricUpdate.com
BrightU.ai
Brighteon.com
Read full article here