The UK’s Online Safety Act 2023, dubbed by its government as “a new set of laws that protects children and adults online”, places a duty of care on virtual platforms and threatens heavy financial penalties for non-compliance with the implementation of mechanisms such as age verification and the removal of harmful content. Accompanying enforcement efforts are apprehension and opposition from organisations encompassing multinational corporations such as Apple and intergovernmental organisations, including the European Court of Human Rights, along with academics, politicians, and human rights activists, who cite concerns surrounding infringements upon the right to privacy and freedom of speech. It can be clearly drawn that the implications of any nation-state’s wish to curb the perils of the digital sphere extend far beyond safeguarding, raising questions about the feasibility and legitimacy of regulatory attempts.
Proponents of the Act understand it to be a necessary precaution for child safety in an otherwise unfettered online abyss, the tragic repercussions of which are evidenced in recent cases such as that of Molly Russell, who took her own life aged fourteen in 2017 after long-term exposure to related internet content, and Brianna Ghey, who was murdered in 2023 by her classmates, one of whom had been first enticed by serial killer documentaries before progressing to videos of torture and murder on the dark web. Indeed, the recent Netflix hit Adolescence rang true to anxieties over impressionable youth and the psychologically damaging exposure to inappropriate content on the developing brain. On some level, restricted content appears to have become increasingly difficult to access as the number of people visiting the most popular pornography sites in the UK was found to have decreased sharply since enhanced age verification rules came into force, with Similarweb estimating that Pornhub lost more than one million visitors in just two weeks.
Yet, despite measurable statistics supporting the value of the Act, backlash against the UK government has arrived in volume and from unprecedented angles. Firstly, corporations affected have proved defiant against restrictions levelled upon them, leveraging their economic power. For example, tech firms such as Meta Platforms and Signal, made attractive to customers through the promise of strong encryption software, have threatened to pull out of the UK market rather than compromise their services. Perhaps the most controversial feature remains the obligation for platforms to verify their users’ ages, which almost always requires users to hand over sensitive personal information such as a government ID scan, a selfie for biometric analysis, or a link to a financial account. Secondly, the politicisation of the issue of internet safety both domestically and internationally has arguably become counterproductive to the Act’s purpose. At the crux of the debate lies the battle of how much the state should intervene in people’s lives, with many on the right expressing fears over mass surveillance, drawing a parallel to the conflict between collective security and personal privacy stoked by Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s terror laws. Whilst Nigel Farage has vowed that Reform UK will repeal the Act if they assume office, the involvement of American politicians challenging the trickle-down effects on their citizens and companies raises more inconsistencies still surrounding attempts to assert blanket control over the metaphysical space of the internet, which does not adhere to sovereign borders.
Critically, in addition to political scepticism, it remains uncertain whether the Act will be able to be enforced. A rise in downloads of Virtual Private Network (VPN) services, as well as successful attempts to bypass age authentication through the use of fake IDs, would suggest not. Furthermore, The Guardian reported that more young people said they had been exposed to pornography before the age of 18 in the 2025 edition of a survey than in the same one that had previously been rolled out in 2023.
So where does Ireland lie? Its own Online Safety Code was adopted by the communications regulating body, Coimisiún na Meán, in October 2024, containing much of the same material as its British counterpart but only applying to the ten companies that fit the criteria of video-sharing platforms which have their EU headquarters in Ireland. The country’s unique position as a European base for many major technology firms means it must proceed with caution when formulating any bigger blanket law. Whilst the traditional protection versus privacy dichotomy will be at the forefront of discussion, the intangible nature of the web also creates further contention between private enterprises and public domains, propelling the matter to an intergovernmental concern.
Politicians, whether in Ireland or abroad, should take from the UK’s experience and attempt to find a middle-ground between shielding citizens and upholding fundamental rights when creating future legislation Though no mean feat, cross-party dialogue, the avoidance of misinformation, and alternative methods such as digital literary education and stronger parental tools, should converge to build a stronger foundation than the Online Safety Act.
