Online Safety Act backlash: UK influencer mulls leaving country over censorship fears

Popular online commentator Dylan Page, who has built a following of more than 15 million people by covering breaking and often shocking news stories, has voiced alarm over the United Kingdom’s new Online Safety Act, saying it has already begun restricting access to legitimate news content.

In a video posted to his followers, Page revealed that one of his TikTok videos had been blocked in the UK for allegedly violating local law, despite the platform itself having no objection to the content.

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Dylan Page (@dylanpage.ning)

“Guys, we seriously need to talk about what’s happening in the UK right now, because if this gets worse, I will be leaving this country,” he said. “You see, today I woke up to a notification that one of my videos had been restricted because it violates local law. And let me really emphasize this, TikTok themselves don’t have a problem with this video. In fact, it can still be watched by everyone else outside of the UK.”

The content was reportedly removed under the new Online Safety Act, legislation that aims to protect children from harmful material online. However, Page argued that the law is already being used to suppress genuine reporting.

“When your local law is more strict than the infamously sensitive TikTok guidelines, you know that something is cooked,” he said. “It’s supposed to protect children… but we’re less than two weeks in and it’s already taking down literal news reports.”

Page warned that restricting videos for under-18s also prevents adults from viewing them. “The news and flow of information has to be a protected space in every country,” he stressed. “And again, I’ll reiterate, this video wasn’t even sensitive enough for TikTok to have a problem with it.”

He cautioned that if such restrictions continue, UK residents might have to resort to VPNs just to access independent reporting. “It starts with one video, one TikTok. But before you know it, people in this country will have to be using VPNs to keep up to date with the news. Just let that sink in. And I’m 100 percent serious when I said, if this gets worse, I’m out.”

The UK’s Online Safety Act has faced criticism from free speech advocates since its passage, with concerns that its broad definitions of “harmful content” could be applied to political speech and journalism.

The UK’s new Online Safety Act, passed in October 2023 and now being rolled out in stages by the communications regulator Ofcom, is drawing fierce criticism for restricting far more than harmful online content. While the law is intended to protect children, critics say it is already being used to censor political speech, limit access to information, and pave the way for invasive surveillance, Novara Media reported.

The law’s first major requirement is age verification for accessing certain online content. Users are now being asked to prove their age using government-issued identification, biometric scans, or behavioural data. In theory, this step is meant to block minors from viewing pornography or other explicit material. In practice, it has resulted in the sudden blocking of political news on Gaza and Ukraine, online forums about sexual assault, hobbyist communities, and even access to platforms like Spotify and Wikipedia.

“Protecting children online should not mean preventing adults from accessing lawful information,” critics argue, pointing to a growing list of blocked websites. One petition calling for the act’s repeal has already gathered nearly half a million signatures, but the government has insisted it has “no plans to repeal” the measure.

- Privacy fears and political bias -

Opponents warn that the law’s implementation leaves a permanent digital footprint. Age verification vendors gain access to personal information such as names, addresses, birth dates, and facial data, details that can be stored, sold, or used to create consumer profiles. Unlike showing an ID in a shop, where a clerk quickly forgets the details, online verification creates a record that users cannot control.

Civil liberties groups have also raised concerns that the law disproportionately targets political dissent. Soon after it took effect, the Reddit forum r/IsraelExposed was blocked, and footage of a protest in Leeds defending asylum seekers was restricted on X/Twitter. Meanwhile, content from pick-up artist communities and child modelling sites has reportedly gone untouched.

Some critics have accused lawmakers of prioritising political agendas over child safety. Organisations involved in advising Ofcom, such as the Antisemitism Policy Trust and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, have been linked to pro-'Israel' advocacy, leading to accusations that the act shields Zionist narratives while silencing opposing views.

- Encryption under threat -

The law also contains provisions to scan encrypted messages for child sexual abuse material (CSAM), echoing similar proposals in the European Union. Digital rights advocates argue this would undermine privacy and jeopardize legitimate uses of encryption, such as protecting whistleblowers and activists. Although the government has paused enforcement of this clause until it becomes “technically feasible,” privacy campaigners warn that the intent remains.

Child safety experts say the measure could do more harm than good. Restricting access to sexual health resources and educational materials, they argue, could leave young people more vulnerable to abuse. Research shows that children who lack basic knowledge of their bodies are at greater risk of exploitation.

- Big tech’s big win -

Ironically, the biggest beneficiaries of the Online Safety Act may be the tech industry itself. By outsourcing age verification, platforms will hand vast amounts of personal data to a small number of specialised vendors, who can monetise it for targeted advertising and other commercial uses. The Age Verification Providers Association, representing these companies, has been a strong backer of the legislation.

Critics warn that the UK is setting a dangerous global precedent. Similar laws have already been introduced or are under consideration in Australia, Canada, Malaysia, and several US states.

While supporters frame the law as a child protection measure, opponents argue it is a “Trojan horse” for authoritarian control, one that suppresses dissent, erodes privacy, and distracts from real solutions to youth mental health, such as restoring funding to education, healthcare, and domestic violence services.

“Child safety is too urgent and serious an issue to be used as political cover,” one rights advocate said. “If we truly want to protect children, we need to fix the systems that are failing them, not build tools for censorship and surveillance.”