Online Safety Act Debate Ignored Content and Concerns, even from the E-Petition

Parliament's debate on the Online Safety Act e-petition revealed a troubling disconnect between citizen concerns and government response. Drawing on Hansard transcripts, the official petition response, civil society briefings, and coverage of biometric data breaches, this analysis shows how over half a million petitioners' warnings about overreach were systematically ignored while MPs expanded their ambitions for digital control.

Rather than engaging with substantive concerns about proportionality, civil liberties, and implementation failures, the debate became a defensive exercise in rhetoric that prioritised state power over citizen rights.

What Citizens Actually Said

The e-petition gathered over half a million signatures with clear, specific concerns about the Online Safety Act's disproportionate scope. Petitioners weren't opposing all online regulation, they wanted smarter, more targeted legislation that protects children without destroying digital freedoms for everyone else.

Everyday Digital Life Under Threat

Citizens highlighted how the Act's broad requirements threaten ordinary online communities that form the backbone of digital civil society:

🏠 Communities at Risk

• Train enthusiast forums facing closure due to compliance costs
• Football fan sites unable to afford age verification systems
• Pet communities (including hamster forums) threatened with shutdown
• Educational platforms like Wikipedia considering UK access restrictions
• Small business websites with comment sections facing impossible compliance burdens

The Age Verification Contradiction

Perhaps most tellingly, it has been highlighted to us an absurd contradiction: at 16, you're legally old enough to have sex, but not old enough to buy condoms online without age verification. This example perfectly illustrates how the Act's sweeping and broad requirements create illogical barriers that undermine rather than support young people's wellbeing.

How the government used this time? To defend the current itteration of the Online Safety act.

What Petitioners Actually Wanted

The petition wasn't simply a protest against regulation, it was a call for revocation and replacement with proportionate legislation. Citizens asked Parliament to:

📜 Citizen Demands

• Repeal the current Online Safety Act and start again with targeted legislation
• Focus narrowly on genuine harms rather than broad content control
• Protect children without eroding freedoms for the entire population
• Safeguard civil liberties, small businesses, and educational platforms from regulatory overreach
• Empower families and communities with tools and education rather than blanket restrictions

These were reasonable, thoughtful demands for legislation that protects without destroying the open internet that enables democracy, education, and community.

How Parliament Responded: Defensive Rhetoric

Rather than engaging with citizens' specific concerns, the parliamentary debate became a general defence of the Act using child safety rhetoric to deflect from substantive issues.

The Ofcom Deflection

Government ministers repeatedly claimed that "Ofcom will apply proportionality" without addressing how proportionality helps a small forum that simply cannot afford compliance costs. This response reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how regulatory burden works in practice.

Proportionality doesn't reduce costs, it just changes who bears them. A hamster enthusiast forum doesn't become more viable because Ofcom promises to be proportionate about enforcement.

Ignored Examples, Dismissed Concerns

MPs systematically failed to address the concrete examples citizens provided:

• No response to concerns about hobby forum closures
• No acknowledgment of Wikipedia's feasibility warnings
• No explanation for the age verification contradiction
• No plan to support small businesses facing compliance costs
• No recognition of civil society concerns about freedom of expression

This pattern suggests Parliament was more interested in defending its legislation than listening to citizens' experiences of how it will work in practice.

The Ignored Security Crisis

Perhaps most concerning was Parliament's complete failure to address the Discord age verification breach that exposed 70,000 users' personal data earlier in 2025. This breach perfectly illustrated citizens' warnings about biometric data risks.

Biometric Data: The Permanent Privacy Risk

Age verification systems increasingly rely on biometric data, facial scans, ID document uploads, and other sensitive personal information that creates permanent privacy risks:

🔒 Biometric Data Risks

• Irreversible exposure: Unlike passwords, biometric data cannot be "reset" once compromised
• Identity theft: Stolen facial scans enable sophisticated impersonation attacks
• Surveillance infrastructure: Mass biometric collection enables state and corporate tracking
• Third-party risk: Private contractors handling sensitive data create multiple breach points
• Function creep: Systems designed for age verification often expand to broader identification uses

Parliament's Dangerous Silence

Parliament's failure to even mention the Discord breach shows how little scrutiny is being applied to the compliance mechanisms the Act mandates. Citizens are being asked to trust their most sensitive personal data to private contractors with poor security records, yet MPs refuse to acknowledge when these systems fail.

This silence is particularly troubling because age verification breaches are not rare events, they represent systemic risks inherent in mass biometric data collection that the Act makes mandatory.

Signs of Dangerous Overreach

Beyond ignoring citizen concerns, the debate revealed government ambitions that extend far beyond child protection into broader control over digital communication and media.

Media Control Ambitions

Ministers spoke openly about wanting control over media and news outlets, framing this power grab as "responsible online governance." This represents a fundamental threat to press freedom and independent journalism.

Algorithm Manipulation

Perhaps most concerning were discussions about reshaping social media algorithms to improve government favourability. This crosses the line from regulation into propaganda, using state power to manipulate how citizens access and perceive information.

Private Message Surveillance

MPs signalled intent to screen private messages and platform communications, extending state oversight into personal exchanges that should remain private. This represents mass surveillance dressed up as child protection.

The Australian Model: Censorship as Inspiration

Alarmingly, MPs referenced Australia's social media bans as a model to follow rather than questioning the risks of such sweeping powers. This suggests enthusiasm for adopting government ordered platform shutdowns, extending the Online Safety Act from regulation into outright censorship.

What Citizens Actually Need

While Parliament focused on expanding state control, citizens consistently asked for empowerment tools that support families and communities in managing online risks without destroying digital freedoms.

Education Over Restriction

Citizens want digital literacy programmes, parental guidance tools, and educational resources that help families navigate online risks together. These approaches build resilience rather than dependence on state control.

Community Led Solutions

Rather than top down regulation, citizens called for community led moderation tools, user empowerment features, and transparent platform policies that give individuals and families control over their online experiences.

Proportionate Targeting

Instead of broad content control, citizens want focused intervention against genuine harms, illegal content, exploitation, and serious threats, without creating barriers to legitimate communication and community building.

💡 What Citizens Want Instead

• Digital literacy education for children, parents, and communities
• Parental control tools that work at the family level
• Platform transparency about moderation policies and practices
• User empowerment through filtering and blocking controls
• Targeted intervention against specific illegal content, not broad censorship
• Community moderation tools that support self-governance

The Democratic Deficit

The Online Safety Act debate exemplifies a broader crisis in democratic accountability, half a million citizens raised legitimate concerns, yet Parliament chose to ignore rather than engage with their arguments in debate.

Petition as Democratic Voice

The e-petition system is supposed to provide a direct channel for citizen input into parliamentary decision making. When over 500,000 people sign a petition calling for legislative change, democratic norms suggest their concerns deserve serious consideration.

Instead, Parliament treated the petition as a public relations problem to be managed rather than a democratic voice to be heard.

Expert Voices Ignored

Civil society organisations including the Open Rights Group provided detailed briefings highlighting the Act's problems, yet these expert analyses were similarly dismissed in favour of government talking points.

When Parliament ignores both citizen concerns and expert analysis, it reveals a democratic system that prioritises state power over public input.

International Context: Learning from Failures

While UK MPs praised restrictive models like Australia's social media bans, international evidence shows how broad online regulation often fails to achieve its stated objectives while creating serious collateral damage.

European Lessons

The EU's Digital Services Act provides a more targeted approach that focuses on platform transparency and user empowerment rather than broad content control. This model protects citizens without destroying the digital commons.

Authoritarian Examples

Countries with extensive online content control from China to Iran demonstrate how child protection rhetoric often masks broader censorship ambitions. The UK risks following this authoritarian path rather than developing democratic alternatives.

🌍 International Approaches

Conclusion: Democracy Versus Digital Authoritarianism

The Online Safety Act debate revealed Parliament's choice between democratic engagement and authoritarian control and Parliament chose control. Half a million citizens raised legitimate concerns about proportionality, privacy, and freedom, yet their voices were systematically ignored in favour of expanded state power.

The debate was not a dialogue with citizens but a monologue from government, one that prioritised control over proportionate protection and rhetoric over reality.

Citizens' warnings about the Act's problems are already proving prescient: biometric data breaches expose personal information, small forums face closure, and government ambitions extend far beyond child protection into media control and private surveillance.

Yet the petitioners core demand remains reasonable and achievable: repeal and replace the Online Safety Act with proportionate legislation that protects children without destroying digital freedom for everyone else.

Parliament's failure to engage with this reasonable demand shows how easily democratic voices can be sidelined when they challenge government power. The Online Safety Act represents not child protection but digital authoritarianism state control over speech, media, and private life dressed up in safety rhetoric.

The question now is whether democratic pressure can force Parliament to reconsider, or whether the UK will continue down the path toward digital authoritarianism that citizens warned against but Parliament chose to ignore.

The petitioners concerns remain unanswered, and the overreach is plain to see. The fight for digital freedom continues, but it will require sustained pressure from citizens who refuse to accept state control as the price of online safety.