I'm considering the same thing. I've done the "contact your MP" thing, but it's a waste of time. You just receive a pre-written letter from some minimum wage assistant (or maybe just a bot).
It's either that or I just consider the internet dead and move on. It's nothing like it was 20 years ago anyway. There are other things to do. Many books to read and places to go. We had something really cool and we were lucky to experience it while it lasted, but it's gone now.
> consider the internet dead and move on. It's nothing like it was 20 years ago anyway. There are other things to do. Many books to read and places to go. We had something really cool and we were lucky to experience it while it lasted, but it's gone now.
I'm pretty much at this stage too. The web/internet was a frontier like the Wild West. But those wild days are gone and are never coming back. Cyberspace has been settled.
It’s hard to feel any enthusiasm for democracy watching things you disagree with being pushed through and having no power to stop it. I signed the petition to reverse the OSA and all we got was a canned response.
I’ve come to the conclusion the only thing you can really do is leave when you disagree with the direction of your country, but of course not everyone has the ability to do that.
There is no "Net" any more. There probably never was really. The internet protocols were designed for resilience from the start. A key to that is packet-switching over circuit-switching. But this thing we call the "internet" today? This thing where more and more nodes can't even speak directly to each other and nobody even cares (see IPv6)? This thing where 90% of traffic goes to a few large multinationals? It's not that. We have no resistance to censorship.
I’m already using policy based routing on UniFi to send OSA censored websites, imgur for example, via Mullvad VPN - it works for the most part, but for any IPv6 websites it completely breaks as UniFi doesn’t support policy based routes for IPv6.
If the government blocks Mullvad then I’ll just switch to Wireguard on a Helsinki based VPS via Hetzner.
> In the name of “online safety”, the fundamental rights of both freedom of expression and privacy appear to be under imminent threat.
The current UK government don't actually care about children, if they did then they would actually investigate the child SA gangs, or holding people to account on the Epstein lists. We have seen other countries such as Australia [1] "magically" have the same idea at the same time, so this is likely a global group influencing this push.
> The current proposal to ban people under 16 - who also have the rights to freedom of expression and privacy - from some (as yet not fully delineated) social media services is likely to result in wide-spread verification.
This is the real objective, it will be just like the UK porn verification [2]. To express yourself online, you will soon need to associate your activity with your real identity. With the discussion of clamping down on VPNs, it won't be long before you need to verify your ID just to connect to the internet.
This has been a long time coming. Years ago you could buy a sim card with money already on it, use it, and then throw it away. Now you need to associate some credit card or ID with the sim card and perform some verification process.
> And so, for the first time, I am considering locating something (perhaps a WireGuard node, or a SOCKS proxy, or a recursive DNS server / DNS proxy, or perhaps all of them) somewhere on the Internet outside the UK, so that I can route some traffic through that, as needed, to maintain my access to the web.
It won't be enough. At some point the UK government will just mandate that they should be allowed to perform deep packet inspection, and then there will be nowhere left to hide. These changes are also being rolled out everywhere - which Country do you trust to run your data through?
I remember the New Zealand Christchurch attack on a mosque, and how multiple governments around the world pressured Facebook to remove it entirely [3]. They were more worried about people seeing and sharing the attack, than the attack itself. The manifesto was entirely banned [4], and people were left entirely dependent on the state to convey a narrative about the attack.
I have a feeling that this all fell out of the "Christchurch Call" [5]. I don't think this recent push spearheaded by them, but I believe it had a large influence on the efforts now ongoing.
The camp who think VPNs and Tor are a solution to government policies feel like disinformation at times.
VPNs are trivial to ban, the IP space is well known, Wireguard is easily to fingerprint and block.
It will be a cat and mouse game, if the government looses this they'll simply make it illegal to be caught using a VPN including Tor. Which is on the table.
The only way this changes is a less crap party, but almost all including Reform are in favour of more censorship.
Zia Yusuf : "... criticised sections of the legislation that allow ministers to direct regulator Ofcom to modify its rules setting out how companies can comply with requirements to crack down on illegal or harmful content, saying it was “the sort of thing that I think (Chinese president) Xi Jinping himself would blush at the concept of”."
"who also have the rights to freedom of expression and privacy", plenty of outlets for people to be expressive in the UK (more so than in the US for example, where the right wing will obviously attack any social media restrictions) that don't involve being fed junk divisive content from mainly US tech companies.
Privacy != anonymity.
Feel free to route your traffic via Wireguard. As long as it is not setup as a service for the mass evasion of age gates by children.
Nice try ! But the fact that the solution to protecting children comes with the maximum boost of government powers in the online world (across the set of all possible ways to protect children) is not a coincidence.
Exactly. You can have your own misgivings about the UK government at home, in private, and share them with no-one. Or you can share them on the online public square, knowing the UK government will know exactly who wrote them. Good thing they never abuse their power of prosecution!
> It is done by the CPS, which operates independently of government and the police.
I should have written "state", not "government", you're right. Does that change anything? But, article 35 of the Chinese constitution guarantees their citizens freedom of speech and of the press. You're beyond naive if you believe they're independent.
> If I were a betting man I'd place a bet that you are further misinformed about the prosecutions you believe are happening and why.
UK politicians admitted the Online Safety Act was: “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but was about regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse” - https://archive.md/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.co...
I'm considering the same thing. I've done the "contact your MP" thing, but it's a waste of time. You just receive a pre-written letter from some minimum wage assistant (or maybe just a bot).
It's either that or I just consider the internet dead and move on. It's nothing like it was 20 years ago anyway. There are other things to do. Many books to read and places to go. We had something really cool and we were lucky to experience it while it lasted, but it's gone now.
> consider the internet dead and move on. It's nothing like it was 20 years ago anyway. There are other things to do. Many books to read and places to go. We had something really cool and we were lucky to experience it while it lasted, but it's gone now.
I'm pretty much at this stage too. The web/internet was a frontier like the Wild West. But those wild days are gone and are never coming back. Cyberspace has been settled.
It’s hard to feel any enthusiasm for democracy watching things you disagree with being pushed through and having no power to stop it. I signed the petition to reverse the OSA and all we got was a canned response.
I’ve come to the conclusion the only thing you can really do is leave when you disagree with the direction of your country, but of course not everyone has the ability to do that.
Depends on your MP. I have received surprisingly detailed responses to some of my past letters.
If they can't be arsed to answer you, then you shouldn't be arsed to vote for them, at least in my opinion.
“The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.”
-- John Gilmore (probably https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/07/12/censor/)
There is no "Net" any more. There probably never was really. The internet protocols were designed for resilience from the start. A key to that is packet-switching over circuit-switching. But this thing we call the "internet" today? This thing where more and more nodes can't even speak directly to each other and nobody even cares (see IPv6)? This thing where 90% of traffic goes to a few large multinationals? It's not that. We have no resistance to censorship.
I’m already using policy based routing on UniFi to send OSA censored websites, imgur for example, via Mullvad VPN - it works for the most part, but for any IPv6 websites it completely breaks as UniFi doesn’t support policy based routes for IPv6.
If the government blocks Mullvad then I’ll just switch to Wireguard on a Helsinki based VPS via Hetzner.
> In the name of “online safety”, the fundamental rights of both freedom of expression and privacy appear to be under imminent threat.
The current UK government don't actually care about children, if they did then they would actually investigate the child SA gangs, or holding people to account on the Epstein lists. We have seen other countries such as Australia [1] "magically" have the same idea at the same time, so this is likely a global group influencing this push.
> The current proposal to ban people under 16 - who also have the rights to freedom of expression and privacy - from some (as yet not fully delineated) social media services is likely to result in wide-spread verification.
This is the real objective, it will be just like the UK porn verification [2]. To express yourself online, you will soon need to associate your activity with your real identity. With the discussion of clamping down on VPNs, it won't be long before you need to verify your ID just to connect to the internet.
This has been a long time coming. Years ago you could buy a sim card with money already on it, use it, and then throw it away. Now you need to associate some credit card or ID with the sim card and perform some verification process.
> And so, for the first time, I am considering locating something (perhaps a WireGuard node, or a SOCKS proxy, or a recursive DNS server / DNS proxy, or perhaps all of them) somewhere on the Internet outside the UK, so that I can route some traffic through that, as needed, to maintain my access to the web.
It won't be enough. At some point the UK government will just mandate that they should be allowed to perform deep packet inspection, and then there will be nowhere left to hide. These changes are also being rolled out everywhere - which Country do you trust to run your data through?
I remember the New Zealand Christchurch attack on a mosque, and how multiple governments around the world pressured Facebook to remove it entirely [3]. They were more worried about people seeing and sharing the attack, than the attack itself. The manifesto was entirely banned [4], and people were left entirely dependent on the state to convey a narrative about the attack.
I have a feeling that this all fell out of the "Christchurch Call" [5]. I don't think this recent push spearheaded by them, but I believe it had a large influence on the efforts now ongoing.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyp9d3ddqyo
[2] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/a...
[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47620519
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/24/censor-bans-ma...
[5] https://www.christchurchcall.org/
The camp who think VPNs and Tor are a solution to government policies feel like disinformation at times.
VPNs are trivial to ban, the IP space is well known, Wireguard is easily to fingerprint and block.
It will be a cat and mouse game, if the government looses this they'll simply make it illegal to be caught using a VPN including Tor. Which is on the table.
The only way this changes is a less crap party, but almost all including Reform are in favour of more censorship.
Really?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/28/reform-uk-v...
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/reform-pledges-to-scra...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nigel-farage...
Zia Yusuf : "... criticised sections of the legislation that allow ministers to direct regulator Ofcom to modify its rules setting out how companies can comply with requirements to crack down on illegal or harmful content, saying it was “the sort of thing that I think (Chinese president) Xi Jinping himself would blush at the concept of”."
And the more radical Restore say this:
https://www.restorebritain.org.uk/restore_civil_liberties
"people under 16", you mean children right?
"who also have the rights to freedom of expression and privacy", plenty of outlets for people to be expressive in the UK (more so than in the US for example, where the right wing will obviously attack any social media restrictions) that don't involve being fed junk divisive content from mainly US tech companies.
Privacy != anonymity.
Feel free to route your traffic via Wireguard. As long as it is not setup as a service for the mass evasion of age gates by children.
Nice try ! But the fact that the solution to protecting children comes with the maximum boost of government powers in the online world (across the set of all possible ways to protect children) is not a coincidence.
> Privacy != anonymity.
Exactly. You can have your own misgivings about the UK government at home, in private, and share them with no-one. Or you can share them on the online public square, knowing the UK government will know exactly who wrote them. Good thing they never abuse their power of prosecution!
The government literally doesn't prosecute anyone.
It is done by the CPS, which operates independently of government and the police.
If I were a betting man I'd place a bet that you are further misinformed about the prosecutions you believe are happening and why. But I am not.
> It is done by the CPS, which operates independently of government and the police.
I should have written "state", not "government", you're right. Does that change anything? But, article 35 of the Chinese constitution guarantees their citizens freedom of speech and of the press. You're beyond naive if you believe they're independent.
> If I were a betting man I'd place a bet that you are further misinformed about the prosecutions you believe are happening and why.
UK politicians admitted the Online Safety Act was: “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but was about regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse” - https://archive.md/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.co...
Even viewing "terrorist" material carries a potential 15 YEAR jail term: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41479620
It's OK to be white and similar stickers landed a man in jail: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51zn2l33r9o
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/03/04/the-tyrannical-jail...
I don't know how much worse you need it to be.
I really do not know how to respond to this and it’s not because your critique is devastating.
> Privacy != anonymity.
In practice, if you lose one, then you also lose the other.