What's frustrating me about this is that theoretically this list should include every MUD and BBS, if they don't want to get in trouble. It's a horrible law, which forces people into the pockets of the largest sites which can afford to do the age verification.
Speaking as a Brit, I wish Wikipedia would just go black for the UK. That might focus some minds.
They're also one of the few sites in a perfect position to; enough usage to make people/government really notice, not typically NSFW related to make the message clear that its not just a "porn ban", and without the profit incentive that makes the likelihood of such an act unlikely or to give the government room to "wait them out".
Regarding Wikipedia - the people in change of these recent anti-consumer laws and ideas would love to shutdown Wikipedia permanently. It is not immediately bad for them, but it is in general a source of objective information which they hate. They would rather warp public opinion through paid for media and social accounts.
Many MUDs/BBSes operate via Telnet/SSH rather than HTTP, potentially creating a technical gray area in enforcement that highlights the law's poor adaptation to the diverse technical landscape of the internet.
In fact that would likely devastate Labour’s already slim chances of reelection. And would make the argument for repealing that idiotic law wholesale something else than “let my constituents watch porn”
One thing I’ve realised over the past few weeks is that some parents must be delighted to have the government control the web for them.
When the parent does the enforcement themselves then they can be put under direct pressure by their children to drop the ban. When the government does it then the parent can say, honestly, sorry, there’s nothing they can do about it: It’s out of their hands. The child only has access to tier 1 support [parent] and the support agent’s only response is “sorry, corporate policy [law] requires AV for certain sites, there’s nothing I can do. Is there anything else I can help you with today?…”
I don’t say this to make the laws easier to swallow but the social economics of it make it more understandable why this law might be so popular with anyone already overloaded with angry teenagers.
Next up: the Bedtime Is At Nine PM Act 2026, Tuck Your Shirt In Act 2027, and No We Have One At Home Already Act 2028.
And then the child talks to their friends, some of whom already have free VPNs, and works around it and said parent goes around oblivious to the fact that their child has access to whatever they want.
My son figured out free VPNs when he was 8-9. This is only stopping adults.
Reminded me of the Youtube Kids. It's supposed to filter out inappropriate and irrelevant content. So, there you can't see things like trains or steam locomotives, or harvesters at work (inappropriate!), but there are infinite cheap-ass 3D cartoons with "toy world", without any words, nor plot.
This is funny but actually has sort of existed for decades, in the sense of the TV watershed – no adult content before 9pm, after which point it's assumed children are in bed and not watching TV.
And yes, you are absolutely right that parents do often like these laws. Being a parent is hard, whatever the age of the kids, and parents will be in favour of things that make it easier. Whether that's making TV default-safe in the daytime, or making adult websites harder to access.
> I don’t say this to make the laws easier to swallow but the social economics of it make it more understandable why this law might be so popular with anyone already overloaded with angry teenagers.
The “think of the children” angle is certainly there to make the bill more morally appealing, but is it actually popular with parents? Or anyone, other than politicians?
The kids in question are those of millennial and Gen-Z(!) parents. They’re not a generation that doesn’t understand the internet.
That’s not to say that some restriction wouldn’t be welcomed, but did the OSA really come from these parents?
> bsky.app | @greg.org on Bluesky
https://bsky.app/profile/greg.org/post/3lvt3mjvskk2i
Reported: 07 August, 2025 at 19:53
Shut down on: 07 August, 2025
Geoblocking due to OSA
Statue of |david behind age verification filter
So, going forward, will similar pieces of art be blocked in the British Museum as well? Like physically?
Yeah, the government that let the strets go rampant with crime, that they don't even bother tracking anymore, is concerned about the people's "online safety"...
At this point, I am pretty confident I can live the rest of my life without ever entering British air space.
So I ask myself - could I come up with a simple HTML page that would be illegal in the UK without age verification checks? I won't host pornography, but it seems to cover a lot more than that. Photos from contests? Calls to overthrow the government?
I'd put it under some creative commons license so other people could host the exact same content. What if there were thousands, or tens of thousands of sites that did it. It'd be wonderful if people were willing to put their money where their mouth is how them how impotent and illegitimate their laws really are.
I don't think it will take long for most people in the UK to realize what's going on, they're already protesting, and it's clear that protest footage is being blocked too.
I also don't think it would take the UK too long to block sites like what you're describing. It's now totally doable that ISPs would run non-whitelisted websites through an AI screening before serving them to the user. Or they might choose to go after individuals accessing them multiple times, as repressive governments go after individuals possessing/viewing politically "harmful" material.
> could I come up with a simple HTML page that would be illegal in the UK without age verification checks?
Put up a page saying you support "Palestine Action". Given that group is (currently) a proscribed "terrorist organisation" (and therefore illegal to support, obvs.), your page would definitely be illegal in the UK.
(Although I suppose there's the light risk that MI6 might decided to rendition you with $LOCALCOUNTRY's assistance if they're feeling exuberant.)
All laws are just words; they only have power because they are backed by a government's monopoly on the legitimate use of force[0].
The Online Safety Act has to be understood as a regulation of the Big Tech platforms that form what we might call the NormieNet. Your web page is unlikely to come to the attention of politicians, Ofcom (the relevant regulator) or the wider public, so you almost certainly would not suffer any adverse consequences, even if you were a resident of the UK.
Britain has a long history of libertarianism - it's where American libertarianism came from - but British libertarians don't make florid speeches about how free they are, they just quietly do whatever it is they want to do without telling anyone who might object. During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK had particularly strict lockdown regulations, because the Johnson government believed that most people wouldn't take any notice of them.
I'm sure someone will come along soon to tell me that this is a terrible principle on which to run a country, but the truth is that Britain is governed entirely by realpolitik, because the historical record shows that strongly principled government does not endure[1].
This is a confusing mix of sites that have decided to geoblock UK users because they don't want to deal with the regulations (fair enough) but also ones that have age verification and no geoblock
EDIT: I was wrong in this comment, I thought it was blocked but the owners decided to take it down.
Original comment follows:
They blocked irish.session.nz: "Resources for learning Irish music by ear".
This is either a mistake or a very early example of a political abuse of the OSA. Both are wrong of course and prove what a stupid and concerning thing OSA truly is.
This is already happening and not just the UK. Happened years ago for Australia and is getting codified into law for the good (TM) EU. This is a concerted push.
100 years ago the British Empire tried to thought-control India. Today the empire is a bunch of demented aristocrats who are thought-policing those few who are still under their control.
The data quality here seems poor, eg it lists reddit.com as having shut down, which is clearly false. I think some list like this would probably come across better with some curation so it isn’t largely a list of unsympathetic porn sites and no-name blogs being blocked to spite the UK.
Under the main link (the big, bold one) there is a link to what precisely has been blocked. Apparently, it's enough for them to just geoblock specific subreddits, like: dark humour, bowel surgeries, some porn stuff, etc.
The list's probably going to get a lot longer. I wonder how it's going to compare to the list of sites who block Europeans due to GDPR concerns. I've only ever noticed two sites that did that, even though the amount of noise from Americans was not insubstantial. The OSA is a lot more invasive than the GDPR though.
To "fall foul", i.e. be required to add highly effective age assurance, there's a number of tests you have to pass
One of the tests is:
> Are there a significant number of children using the service or is the service likely to attract a significant number of children.
I'd guess that HN would be in scope for the act overall - they provide user-to-user functionality and have a lot of users in the UK. Either they answer no to the questions above, or they answer yes and should have performed a risk assessment where they look at things like what kind of content is allowed, how the site is moderated, how do users contact each other etc etc.
They'd have to block amazon and ebay, too. Someone might have the idea to buy a book there. Speaking of which, are they also closing book stores and libraries? Apparently, they're not blocking MechaHitler. Cheers.
[+] [-] b800h|7 months ago|reply
Speaking as a Brit, I wish Wikipedia would just go black for the UK. That might focus some minds.
[+] [-] cs02rm0|7 months ago|reply
Likewise. People (organisations/companies), as far as possible, shouldn't be pandering to this stuff, it's not the answer, it doesn't help them or us.
[+] [-] bodge5000|7 months ago|reply
To be clear, also a Brit
[+] [-] Yizahi|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] spookie|7 months ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#W...
[+] [-] GJim|7 months ago|reply
... is that gambling sites are except.
I may need to prove my age to visit Reddit (and soon Wikipedia) but not to visit Bet365, Ladbrook's, Paddy Power etc etc.
Need I tell you who some of the biggest lobbyists and political donors have been?
[+] [-] silon42|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] ethan_smith|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] cm2187|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] GoblinSlayer|7 months ago|reply
Five eyes says no.
[+] [-] gorgoiler|7 months ago|reply
When the parent does the enforcement themselves then they can be put under direct pressure by their children to drop the ban. When the government does it then the parent can say, honestly, sorry, there’s nothing they can do about it: It’s out of their hands. The child only has access to tier 1 support [parent] and the support agent’s only response is “sorry, corporate policy [law] requires AV for certain sites, there’s nothing I can do. Is there anything else I can help you with today?…”
I don’t say this to make the laws easier to swallow but the social economics of it make it more understandable why this law might be so popular with anyone already overloaded with angry teenagers.
Next up: the Bedtime Is At Nine PM Act 2026, Tuck Your Shirt In Act 2027, and No We Have One At Home Already Act 2028.
[+] [-] vidarh|7 months ago|reply
My son figured out free VPNs when he was 8-9. This is only stopping adults.
[+] [-] culebron21|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] tene80i|7 months ago|reply
This is funny but actually has sort of existed for decades, in the sense of the TV watershed – no adult content before 9pm, after which point it's assumed children are in bed and not watching TV.
And yes, you are absolutely right that parents do often like these laws. Being a parent is hard, whatever the age of the kids, and parents will be in favour of things that make it easier. Whether that's making TV default-safe in the daytime, or making adult websites harder to access.
[+] [-] iLoveOncall|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] teamonkey|7 months ago|reply
The “think of the children” angle is certainly there to make the bill more morally appealing, but is it actually popular with parents? Or anyone, other than politicians?
The kids in question are those of millennial and Gen-Z(!) parents. They’re not a generation that doesn’t understand the internet.
That’s not to say that some restriction wouldn’t be welcomed, but did the OSA really come from these parents?
[+] [-] computerthings|7 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RaSoJo|7 months ago|reply
So, going forward, will similar pieces of art be blocked in the British Museum as well? Like physically?
[+] [-] coldtea|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] perihelions|7 months ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43152154 ("In memoriam (onlinesafetyact.co.uk)"—147 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42433044 ("Lfgss shutting down 16th March 2025 (day before Online Safety Act is enforced) (lfgss.com)"—555 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43152178 ("Lobsters blocking UK users because of the Online Safety Act"—87 comments)
[+] [-] LAC-Tech|7 months ago|reply
So I ask myself - could I come up with a simple HTML page that would be illegal in the UK without age verification checks? I won't host pornography, but it seems to cover a lot more than that. Photos from contests? Calls to overthrow the government?
I'd put it under some creative commons license so other people could host the exact same content. What if there were thousands, or tens of thousands of sites that did it. It'd be wonderful if people were willing to put their money where their mouth is how them how impotent and illegitimate their laws really are.
[+] [-] trinix912|7 months ago|reply
I also don't think it would take the UK too long to block sites like what you're describing. It's now totally doable that ISPs would run non-whitelisted websites through an AI screening before serving them to the user. Or they might choose to go after individuals accessing them multiple times, as repressive governments go after individuals possessing/viewing politically "harmful" material.
[+] [-] zimpenfish|7 months ago|reply
Put up a page saying you support "Palestine Action". Given that group is (currently) a proscribed "terrorist organisation" (and therefore illegal to support, obvs.), your page would definitely be illegal in the UK.
(Although I suppose there's the light risk that MI6 might decided to rendition you with $LOCALCOUNTRY's assistance if they're feeling exuberant.)
[+] [-] cjs_ac|7 months ago|reply
The Online Safety Act has to be understood as a regulation of the Big Tech platforms that form what we might call the NormieNet. Your web page is unlikely to come to the attention of politicians, Ofcom (the relevant regulator) or the wider public, so you almost certainly would not suffer any adverse consequences, even if you were a resident of the UK.
Britain has a long history of libertarianism - it's where American libertarianism came from - but British libertarians don't make florid speeches about how free they are, they just quietly do whatever it is they want to do without telling anyone who might object. During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK had particularly strict lockdown regulations, because the Johnson government believed that most people wouldn't take any notice of them.
I'm sure someone will come along soon to tell me that this is a terrible principle on which to run a country, but the truth is that Britain is governed entirely by realpolitik, because the historical record shows that strongly principled government does not endure[1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England
[+] [-] isaacremuant|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] ascorbic|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] j1elo|7 months ago|reply
Are they really going to register individual topics for Reddit?
Wait,
> Post on social media website X claiming that content relating to protests has been age-gated due to the Online Safety Act.
Now we're reporting individual tweets?!?
[+] [-] santiagobasulto|7 months ago|reply
Original comment follows: They blocked irish.session.nz: "Resources for learning Irish music by ear". This is either a mistake or a very early example of a political abuse of the OSA. Both are wrong of course and prove what a stupid and concerning thing OSA truly is.
[+] [-] KillenBoek|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] isaacremuant|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Mk2000|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] swarnie|7 months ago|reply
Get back to work Nicholas 30 ans. The Uniparty demands another day of sacrifice.
[+] [-] selfmodruntime|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] zimpenfish|7 months ago|reply
[0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents
[+] [-] akomtu|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] dan-robertson|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] a5c11|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] imtringued|7 months ago|reply
The amount of geoblocked/shutdown sites by far exceeds the "intended" [0] targets.
[0] Everyone knows that the collateral damage is intentional and this was never about porn.
[+] [-] pjc50|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] blisstonia|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] anonzzzies|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] lblissett|7 months ago|reply
Is there any verification on submissions to this?
[+] [-] Telaneo|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelt|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] ta1243|7 months ago|reply
Sites block for GDPR because they want to abuse visitor data and privacy
Sites block for OSA because they don't want to abuse visitor data and privacy
[+] [-] crashprone|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] blisstonia|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] desas|7 months ago|reply
One of the tests is:
> Are there a significant number of children using the service or is the service likely to attract a significant number of children.
I'd guess that HN would be in scope for the act overall - they provide user-to-user functionality and have a lot of users in the UK. Either they answer no to the questions above, or they answer yes and should have performed a risk assessment where they look at things like what kind of content is allowed, how the site is moderated, how do users contact each other etc etc.
[+] [-] tempodox|7 months ago|reply