What's the situation in UK about censorship?

[-]

ukbot-nicolabot@reddit

**Your post from /r/AskUK has been removed by a human moderator.** Some questions can easily be searched online in order to find an answer - including questions like "what should I see when visiting the UK?" or "what is the average salary of an X job?" or "what is living in Y like?" or "where can I buy X?" or "is Y product any good?" AskUK is unable to be your search engine and the answers to these questions are easily found using basic research and internet-skills. If you struggle to find the result of your question using Google or other search engine, make sure that you [use all the tricks and tips available](https://www.lifehack.org/articles/technology/20-tips-use-google-search-efficiently.html) and try again. For visiting and tourist related suggestions, we suggest [WikiTravel](https://wikitravel.org/en/Main_Page), [WikiVoyage](https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page), or [TripAdvisor](https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/). There also may be more regional subreddits such as /r/London or /r/Manchester that will provide better answers. **If you have already make all efforts to search online, please delete your post and re-ask the question including more detail about what you have looked for, found, or heard.** *If you believe this post should not have been removed, [first read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/about/rules/) before [messaging the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK&subject=Post Removal Appeal)*. See our guide on [common issues with posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/wiki/postremoved) and how to overcome them!

Reply

[-]

Manc-Yapper@reddit

People have only been arrested because It’s illegal to incite violence in a post on social media, & rightly so.

Reply

[-]

AlbyDj90@reddit (OP)

I think threatening people is illegal in pretty much any country. So is this all just bullshit, exaggerated for some reason?

Reply

[-]

CatalunyaNoEsEspanya@reddit

Threat: I'm going to hit you Incitement: (Insert group of people) should be beaten.

Reply

[-]

StarShipYear@reddit

If somebody said that "Mrs Brown's Boys fans should be beaten with a massive iron cast pan" would that be incitement?

Reply

[-]

Odd_Presentation8624@reddit

Yes - if you've never sat through an episode. No - if you can prove that you've sat through an episode. Interestingly, if you can prove a family member made you sit through a Christmas episode - on Christmas Day - that family member could face a tribunal at The Hague.

Reply

[-]

StarShipYear@reddit

>if you can prove a family member made you sit through a Christmas episode - on Christmas Day - that family member could face a tribunal at The Hague. Clear example of inciting violence. Arrest them!

Reply

[-]

Realistic-River-1941@reddit

I assume they already have had a knock on the head...

Reply

[-]

Surface_Detail@reddit

No jury would convict.

Reply

[-]

gemunicornvr@reddit

Yeah it's right wing propaganda. We also have fairly low crime, although this propaganda machine has convinced Americans our crime is worse than there's, in the UK it's 0.8 homicides per 100k in America it's 20 homicides per 100k.

Reply

[-]

Available-Crew-4645@reddit

No it isn't https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

Reply

[-]

Cheapntacky@reddit

So someone got charged under the offensive communications act. That's a little different.

Reply

[-]

WowzersTrousers0@reddit

>I think threatening people is illegal in pretty much any country. Correct, - Both of your questions are about, essentially, bringing digital laws in-line with Real-life laws. You cannot sell hardcore pornography to children in real life, and you cannot threaten to murder somebody in real life; So therefore, the same should apply over the internet.

Reply

[-]

CheesyLala@reddit

Pretty much, yep.

Reply

[-]

Manc-Yapper@reddit

Threatening and inciting are not the same thing.

Reply

[-]

Wannabee_Mexicano@reddit

Or by saying masks don’t work and covid isn’t as dangerous as the gov wants you to think

Reply

[-]

Psimo-@reddit

Good. Because those options got people killed.

Reply

[-]

Wannabee_Mexicano@reddit

Well, it didn’t, but fine. And the gov were laughing at you the whole time. You’ve proved OPs point, gov basically censors you and make you support it. Well done

Reply

[-]

gemunicornvr@reddit

In China and Japan people wear masks if they get a common cold out of respect. It won't stop you getting sick but it absolutely stops the spread

Reply

[-]

CatalunyaNoEsEspanya@reddit

This didn't happen

Reply

[-]

Wannabee_Mexicano@reddit

I was censored for saying masks don’t do anything. I’ve been banned on many subs for saying it 🤣

Reply

[-]

gemunicornvr@reddit

You weren't arrested tho and the world's Internet censored people, masks don't help you in terms of being safe but if you are infected it stops the spread

Reply

[-]

1CharlieMike@reddit

That’s because your peers think you’re a bellend, not because you fell foul of any laws.

Reply

[-]

Fresh_Relation_7682@reddit

Which has precisely what to do with the UK Government?

Reply

[-]

CatalunyaNoEsEspanya@reddit

That's nothing to do with the government

Reply

[-]

AlbyDj90@reddit (OP)

Well, I don't agree with this. I am extremely pro-vaccine and I find that anti-vaxxers have highly questionable ideas... even harmful in a certain sense, but their opinions should not be silenced by censorship, but rather questioned.

Reply

[-]

Wannabee_Mexicano@reddit

I agree, but the premise that vaccines had no side effects should’ve also been questioned

Reply

[-]

Fresh_Relation_7682@reddit

It was never said that vaccines had no side effects.

Reply

[-]

CatalunyaNoEsEspanya@reddit

It's not true

Reply

[-]

terryjuicelawson@reddit

Who got arrested for this and what context.

Reply

[-]

Any-Skill-5128@reddit

People have been arrested for other than just inciting violence as far as I recall

Reply

[-]

Available-Crew-4645@reddit

Was the girl who posted rap lyrics on her Instagram "inciting violence?"

Reply

[-]

WowzersTrousers0@reddit

Yes.

Reply

[-]

Anony_mouse202@reddit

It’s not just illegal to incite violence, it’s also illegal to send anything “grossly offensive” over the internet (S127 communications act 2003). This is the “arrested for twitter emojis” law. You don’t have to cause anyone any harm, if a court thinks your online communications is too offensive they can convict you.

Reply

[-]

terryjuicelawson@reddit

Pretty high bar though with a lot of context to it. Plenty of people have stalked and harrassed people who may have tipped it over the edge with something that could appear trivial taken on its own.

Reply

[-]

Vardy@reddit

The OSA which added age-gates to "adult" content has already been shown to be ineffective for the most part. VPNs have become more prevalent and sites that don't care about these laws continue to exist. I personally bypassed the age-gate on Discord by using images of Mr Bean on my phone and facing it to my webcam. Took a few attempts with different pictures but it worked. Just remember that any politician using terrorism or protecting the children as an excuse for a new law, are liars.

Reply

[-]

Vernacian@reddit

Two very, very different policies you're asking about here. The age restrictions are, IMO, a stupid policy dreamt up by people who don't understand the wider implications. They're piss-easy to bypass with a VPN. I'm sure teenagers have found other methods too. Some probably leave them at risk of having their personal data stolen by routing their Internet traffic through malicious servers. As for "censorship" and people being arrested, that is absolutely blown up by the media. It's a real thing, but the bar for prosecution is pretty high and while I do think the law goes too far, it isn't something any normal person needs to be worried about. People arrested are nearly always encouraging murder or other harms to be brought upon people.

Reply

[-]

mysp2m2cc0unt@reddit

> I'm sure teenagers have found other methods too. Someone posted that the kids were paying homeless folks to get past the age verification. Crafty/horny little buggers.

Reply

[-]

Primary-Angle4008@reddit

The government published a list of sites who don’t follow the age verification law so you can just use one of those, they basically advertising a way round their own restrictions That said as mum of a 15 year old I welcome anything that makes it harder 😎🫣

Reply

[-]

wolftick@reddit

The problem is that sites which obey the requirement for age verification and are therefore inaccessible are generally _better._ It might make it a bit more difficult but it's not going to stop it. It simply pushes the underage towards sites that don't care, and that ethos can extend beyond just ignoring age verification laws.

Reply

[-]

Connell95@reddit

To be honest, all it’s doing is ensuring every 15 year old in the country has good working knowledge of VPNs 🤫

Reply

[-]

Realistic-River-1941@reddit

> That said as mum of a 15 year old I welcome anything that makes it harder Fnarr fnarr.

Reply

[-]

phatboi23@reddit

>The government published a list of sites who don’t follow the age verification law so you can just use one of those, they basically advertising a way round their own restrictions google used to? not sure if they still do when you searched for piracy sites, if you scroll down to the bottom of the first page it'll say "these sites were removed due to laws etc" lol

Reply

[-]

NotASockPuppet88@reddit

"That said as mum of a 15 year old I welcome anything that makes it harder" There's a multitude of ways you could interpret this sentence.

Reply

[-]

Curiousinsomeways@reddit

How hot is the mum is the question.

Reply

[-]

Primary-Angle4008@reddit

lol yes now that I read it back

Reply

[-]

Curiousinsomeways@reddit

Sounds like utter bullshit, the logistics alone don't make any sense compared to sneaking ID from an older sibling or whatever.

Reply

[-]

Connell95@reddit

Kids just use free VPNs. Nobody is bothering to fake an ID when you can just pass the whole thing entirely.

Reply

[-]

vinyljunkie1245@reddit

Or Norman Rebus' face from Death Stranding 2

Reply

[-]

phatboi23@reddit

god that was so funny when that happened, fuckin' genius too haha

Reply

[-]

Rev_Biscuit@reddit

It’s the new ‘ finding a stack of Razzle in the bushes ‘.

Reply

[-]

kylehyde84@reddit

How resourceful. Love it haha

Reply

[-]

untakenu@reddit

You dont even need a VPN. A lot of sites just arent affected, or straight up refused to be controlled by some foreign government.

Reply

[-]

missuseme@reddit

The bigger problem is it drives people away from the mainstream porn sites, which while not perfect at least come under some scrutiny to do the right thing when it comes to illegal and harmful content. It's trivial to simply search for an alternative, that doesn't enforce the ID rules and hosts harmful and illegal content.

Reply

[-]

Questjon@reddit

>I've learned of cases where law enforcement has arrested people for social media posts deemed "controversial." Not by people telling the truth you haven't. People have been arrested for inciting violence and making threats online. The controversial part only exists in the minds of people who think speaking on social media is the same as speaking in a pub with your friends, but when you put threats or calls to violence in writing and broadcast them you fall under stricter laws. We probably do need to change our laws because social media has completely changed since the laws were introduced but that doesn't mean people are right to expect police to just ignore crimes they don't agree with. As for the new porn law, yeah that's a really stupid law that can fuck right off. Not only is it incredibly intrusive and downright annoying (especially if you're researching an adult subject and need to visit a lot of different resources) but it's ridiculously ineffective and actually drives people away from regulated "safe" sites to far more sinister ones.

Reply

[-]

ukman29@reddit

Graham Linehan may disagree with the summary of your first paragraph. He was arrested by armed police for a few X posts which were neither inciting violence nor making threats.

Reply

[-]

DameKumquat@reddit

He was arrested on suspicion of incuting violence. Among other things, he said if a trans woman was in a female changing room, you should "punch him in the balls." Whether or not you think that's arrest-worthy, it's a damn clear incitement to violence.

Reply

[-]

StarShipYear@reddit

>it's a damn clear incitement to violence. Could you explain what makes it clear?

Reply

[-]

DameKumquat@reddit

The full tweet: "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls." It's an instruction to his readers.

Reply

[-]

StarShipYear@reddit

Yes, but what about it makes it clear incitement to violence? I'm not asking for what was said, I'm asking what makes it so clear, in your opinion.

Reply

[-]

DameKumquat@reddit

Incitement means telling someone to do something. Reading that, I'm assuming you are a native speaker, would you agree he's telling you to 'make a scene' in that scenario? It's a command statement, I'm sure some linguist could analyse it further. So the rest of the sentence is also incitement - to call cops and to punch the person. Punching is violence. I think a lot of people think incitement requires more obvious urging, go on, go on, go on, let's all do this, it'll be great, but that isn't what the law requires.

Reply

[-]

StarShipYear@reddit

I used this example elsewhere, but if somebody tweeted the following ""Mrs Brown's Boys fans should be beaten with a massive iron cast pan"--would you say that is inciting violence? "Beaten with a massive iron cast pan" is violence.

Reply

[-]

DavidRellim@reddit

The verb "punch." Coupled with the sentence subject "him." I don't even think he should have been arrested, but this is just facetious.

Reply

[-]

Questjon@reddit

I personally think the police should have shown some common sense and interviewed him at home instead of arresting him at the airport but the tweet he was investigated for was definitely sufficiently a call to violence to warrant the police investigating the complaint. And I also think they were right not to charge him because a reasonable person can see that it wasn't an actual incitement of violence. Like I said before, I think the law is faulty and needs amending but I also don't think the police are wrong to investigate complaints of a crime that could result in people coming to harm.

Reply

[-]

StarShipYear@reddit

> reasonable person can see that it wasn't an actual incitement of violence. It's funny, because user u/DameKumquat says it's " it's a damn clear incitement to violence", and others are saying that it isn't. There are polar opposite reactions to it, both thinking it's pretty clear cut.

Reply

[-]

Questjon@reddit

It's both. When you publish something in writing you are often leaving your words open to interpretation, but it was clearly sufficient to justify an investigation and clearly insufficient to justify a charge. People who claim otherwise are unreasonably being biased because it doesn't fit their narrative or agenda.

Reply

[-]

DavidRellim@reddit

"Punch them in the bollucks" was the direct quote, I believe.

Reply

[-]

Liturginator9000@reddit

Exactly, if you have a stadium of angry people and you're telling them to burn down a specific building, everyone sees the obvious problem. But suddenly it's just a bit of memein' if it's online. Nope

Reply

[-]

straight_syrup_@reddit

Contrary to popular belief, you don't get arrested in the UK for a little bit of online trolling

Reply

[-]

Curiousinsomeways@reddit

Come now, it's not that simple. People have had police visits and been told to change what they say even though what they posted broke no law, that pre-dates recent high profile cases too.

Reply

[-]

straight_syrup_@reddit

Show me one instance of this happening that isn't sourced from DM or the sun, any source that isn't financially incentivized to rile brits up with lies, then I'll believe you

Reply

[-]

Available-Crew-4645@reddit

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

Reply

[-]

straight_syrup_@reddit

This happened 7 years ago but good find: "Teenager Frankie Murphy died after "pulling a wheelie" on his bicycle across three lanes of traffic and into the path of a speeding car, an inquest heard." "Russell argued that the use of the lyrics ‘kill a snitch n**** and rob a rich n****’ – copied from a friend’s Instagram account – were used by thousands of people in memory of Frankie Murphy." "But Sefton Magistrates Court heard that Merseyside Police was anonymously sent a screenshot of the Instagram account update – and she was charged with a hate crime." "The content was passed to Police Constable Dominique Walker, whose brother, Anthony, was killed when two cousins ambushed him and embedded a mountaineering axe in his skull in July 2005." You have one case of a police officer feeling upset due to tragic personal circumstances. One case too many! And someone clearly snitched on this girl with malicious intent, who got a fine and community service. But it's hardly the epidemic people pretend it is

Reply

[-]

CronusCronusCronus@reddit

You have no idea if there is an epidemic, 99% of CJS activity go unreported in the media.

Reply

[-]

Poison3k@reddit

Look up the chorus of that song, thats what she posted. publicly. That breaks the hate speech law and she was rightly found guilty.

Reply

[-]

Curiousinsomeways@reddit

https://www.mortons-solicitors.co.uk/police-apologise-after-arresting-retired-officer-over-tweet-what-it-means-for-free-speech/

Reply

[-]

Liturginator9000@reddit

That's not arrested. In all of those cases I just looked up, it's police cautioning with no crime committed. Now people can say that's too far, but if you have laws around hate speech and you're doing hate speech to tens or even hundreds of thousands of people irl, you see an immediate problem. But over the internet everyone just pretends it's trolling when it fucking isn't with these morons most of the time. Same with leftists. If you're saying hamas is great actually and a specific site or people should receive violence, then yes you should be done for that the same as that moron woman was. Or change the laws. The main problem I see is it's used as a vector for harassment. Police have to take complaints seriously, there's no teeth pointing the other way if the complaint is vacuous harassing like there is with things like swatting.

Reply

[-]

Curiousinsomeways@reddit

This must be a joke. The police cautioning despite there being no crime is extremely serious and utterly chilling on speech.

Reply

[-]

AlbyDj90@reddit (OP)

So...it's true or not? I always find extremely conflicting opinions on this topic. I'm starting to think it's a topic where people themselves are divided.

Reply

[-]

Curiousinsomeways@reddit

It's not binary, think of it as degrees along a scale. Recently there's been headlines about a woman jailed for tweets so she's at one end and then further along where you offended people calling the police who then go to people's homes and in effect menace them - that's the state side of things. Not super common, but the UK has a culture within the public where policing speech and/or hounding people who say things that activists don't like (inc trying to get them sacked from jobs) is a thing so there's a non-state element of censorship that kinda plays out. Both have people self-censoring and that isn't measurable rather than some kind of law or censorship by government.

Reply

[-]

MissAntiRacist@reddit

You absolutely do if someone complains. The police aren't just sat on twitter all day. They only follow something up when someone complains about being offended. Just follow legaladviceUK and you'll see it all the time.

Reply

[-]

PabloMarmite@reddit

Most arrests are because people don’t realise a “voluntary interview” isn’t actually voluntary. I’d be very interested to know the amount of arrests that result in charges, and I would suspect it is quite low.

Reply

[-]

terryjuicelawson@reddit

This may be the key, to many people an arrest means "we think you are guilty and are going to trick you into a confession". American police especially. Here it can just be a fact finding mission after a complaint and it gets the facts out there recorded officially.

Reply

[-]

Curiousinsomeways@reddit

A fact finding mission that results in your DNA being taken and if you need an enhanced DBS it'll show up. Plus you get to spin the wheel on risk and decide whether to spend thousands on a solicitor or trust the free one or to chance it on your own.

Reply

[-]

PabloMarmite@reddit

I’d suspect that most of the complaints are handled via an interview with the suspect and not followed up. A “voluntary interview” means “we want to talk you, but let’s arrange a mutually convenient time”, and arrests only occur if the suspect says “no”, or there’s a chance that they can somehow interfere with the evidence in between now and then.

Reply

[-]

straight_syrup_@reddit

[police won't even arrest straight up criminals, so why are they arresting shitposters over a bit of banter, oh wait except they're not ](https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/girl-investigated-over-indecent-messages-not-viewing-social-media-post-2025-09-29/)

Reply

[-]

Prize-Phrase-7042@reddit

> and I've learned of cases where law enforcement has arrested people for social media posts deemed "controversial." Yeah, can't even threaten to burn people alive anymore, the state of this country.

Reply

[-]

CronusCronusCronus@reddit

You can be flippant about it but there are absolutely people being arrested for non criminal social media posts.

Reply

[-]

CheesyLala@reddit

There are always examples of law enforcement overstepping their remit in a hundred different ways every day, that doesn't make it government policy. Last week a woman was fined £150 for tipping her coffee down a drain before someone saw sense and overturned it. As far as I'm aware the UK government is taking steps to stop the kind of 'hurty words' arrests and focus it only on serious threats of violence. One example being Graham Linehan not being charged for saying trans people should be kicked in the bollocks, which presumably they deemed not a serious threat. Are you saying there are still examples of people being arrested now for social media posts that aren't serious threats of violence?

Reply

[-]

LucyLetbysLonelyVag@reddit

Didn't that Connolly women actually end up in prison for 6 months or so? She's obviously out of line in what she said, but she shouldn't have been sent to prison for it.

Reply

[-]

Jonny_rhodes@reddit

Saying to burn people alive shouldn’t be taken as a serious threat and shouldn’t be punished ?

Reply

[-]

mesonofgib@reddit

She said "set fire to all the hotels for all I care" which is skirting around the edge of incitement, in my opinion. It certainly didn't deserve _three years_ in prison, which is more than given out for violent domestic abuse https://www.westmercia.police.uk/news/west-mercia/news/2023/march/birmingham-man-handed-prison-term-for-domestic-abuse-offences-in-redditch/

Reply

[-]

Jonny_rhodes@reddit

All this is saying to me is that domestic violence is not punished enough. If someone had set fire to a hotel full of immigrants because of her tweet when the issue was nothing to do with immigrants. If someone threatens to stab somebody but doesn’t do it there’s a crime or not ?

Reply

[-]

LucyLetbysLonelyVag@reddit

From her, no. That's a woman talking our of frustration. You have a talking to at most. You don't put her in prison over it.

Reply

[-]

Jonny_rhodes@reddit

I don’t think anybody should be saying to burn anybody alive … no matter the circumstance.

Reply

[-]

LucyLetbysLonelyVag@reddit

They shouldn't. But how you deal with them saying it is important.

Reply

[-]

gemunicornvr@reddit

They was a serious threat 😂😂 she had a ton of backing from right wing propagandists too and still couldn't win the court case so you know it was an inexcusable post

Reply

[-]

Picnata@reddit

Oh my goodness, someone rational on Reddit! Good god

Reply

[-]

CronusCronusCronus@reddit

It was 'government policy'. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/oct/20/father-ted-creator-graham-linehan-says-police-taking-no-further-action-over-trans-posts

Reply

[-]

Kiss_It_Goodbyeee@reddit

Like? Examples would definitely stop you being downvoted to oblivion.

Reply

[-]

CronusCronusCronus@reddit

Come, you know it wouldn't. Graham Lineham arrest at the airport would be a recent example.

Reply

[-]

txakori@reddit

[redacted by order HM Thought Police]

Reply

[-]

Realistic-River-1941@reddit

There are different issues. One problem is that there are laws about causing offence which predate social media as we now know it, and aren't fit for purpose. Say something face to face, it's probably fine. Do it electronically, and you could have problems. Offence is also very subjective, and there are genuine concerns it could eventually lead to things like blasphemy laws by the back door.

Reply

[-]

What_Reality_@reddit

Just get a vpn. I’ve always used one so didn’t notice any change with the new crap in place

Reply

[-]

Yorkshire-Teabeard@reddit

Imgur proper abandoned us tho, mine doesn't work even with the VPN

Reply

[-]

Potential_Bird_8597@reddit

Try a DNS test, mine works perfectly fine with a VPN. There's a fair chance your IP is leaking. Happens with mine occasionally, quickly solved by reconnecting the VPN.

Reply

[-]

Yorkshire-Teabeard@reddit

I've reconnected a bunch of times tbf, I just did the test and it just shows where the VPN is connected so I guess that's a good thing?

Reply

[-]

Potential_Bird_8597@reddit

Should be. I just checked mine and it was saying I was in the UK. Reconnected and I'm back to being in Switzerland. I'm no expert in this stuff, but it's worked for me so far.

Reply

[-]

Yorkshire-Teabeard@reddit

Thanks for sharing! Unfortunate it doesn't work for me, I'll try some different countries or somat. Cheers bud

Reply

[-]

sparklybeast@reddit

Yes, I've also not been able to get it working since. I do only have a free VPN though - can't afford a sub at the moment - so maybe it's that?

Reply

[-]

Any-Skill-5128@reddit

VPN USERS ARE JUST AS BAD AS PREDS (says bbc)

Reply

[-]

gemunicornvr@reddit

That's bizarre 😂😂, especially when I don't watch porn I use it to watch a different Netflix

Reply

[-]

Any-Skill-5128@reddit

I know … it’s what news reporters said as a way to prevent people from using them

Reply

[-]

correctedboat@reddit

i get bombarded with ''prove you're not a robot'' and ''please solve the captcha'' every 5 min when using VPN. That's the biggest downside I've noticed : (

Reply

[-]

linkheroz@reddit

My ads are from the country I now reside in.

Reply

[-]

Chuck_The_Lad@reddit

The only people who got arrested were inciting violence. A woman told a group of rioters to burn down a hotel full of asylum seekers.

Reply

[-]

gemunicornvr@reddit

Not controversial posts but posts committing a hate crime or inciting violence, you can be controversial

Reply

[-]

gemunicornvr@reddit

The age restrictions on media is annoying honestly and it's the governments answer to stopping young people being exposed to pornographic material which I totally understand. However VPN kinda overrides it and they should have actually come up with something that would help over this nonsense.

Reply

[-]

AsBritishAsApplePie@reddit

It's shit. Can't access any NSFW marked threads on reddit.

Reply

[-]

Competitive_Test6697@reddit

Just confirm ID?

Reply

[-]

OkGrapefruit7174@reddit

I really don’t recommend giving your passport details to an outsourced company that you know very little about..

Reply

[-]

Competitive_Test6697@reddit

Ive not done it. But don't you just send a photo that they confirm?

Reply

[-]

OkGrapefruit7174@reddit

Depends on how old you look. It took me a lot of tries even though I’m 25

Reply

[-]

UnhappyAd6499@reddit

Dont need ID. Just a face. No identification.

Reply

[-]

AsBritishAsApplePie@reddit

Ew, no.

Reply

[-]

Competitive_Test6697@reddit

Thats your choice.

Reply

[-]

neo101b@reddit

Or certain image hosting sites, either. If you google without a vpn, they are still plenty NSFW sites out there for now.

Reply

[-]

AsBritishAsApplePie@reddit

Yeah, imgur was blocked recently, but for unrelated reasons afaik. I'm not even looking for porn, I was locked out of a discussion of Fly Agaric mushrooms.

Reply

[-]

maceion@reddit

Means to kill folk?

Reply

[-]

neo101b@reddit

No the only way to fly. Its an oldy hallucinogen, it was thought people used to feed reindeers the mushroom, so they could drink its pee. Its where flying reindeers may of come from. Around 2000 to 2013, there used to be lots and lots of information out there, with Erowid and forums. Lots of really intelligent well read folks, share their knowledge, now looking for it only gets you rehab websites. People of all ages, used to explore and experiment with all kinds of plants and strange substances, sadly the groups out there are dying off, I blame social media and corporate rules.

Reply

[-]

AsBritishAsApplePie@reddit

lol, they're some of the least toxic of the Amanita family. If I wanted to kill someone they wouldn't be my first, second, or even third pick. They're not entirely safe, but can be prepared as a remedy for anxiety or just to be consumed as food.

Reply

[-]

mysp2m2cc0unt@reddit

Proton has a free VPN

Reply

[-]

Significant-Egg8119@reddit

Don’t believe everything you read on the internet! But ironically, do believe this post (also on the internet)

Reply

[-]

CheesyLala@reddit

> is it being "blown up" by the media? Not so much the media as right-wing brigading and the mass-amplification of this by Xitter/Musk/Grok. Most of the time our media doesn't outright lie, but it is rather selective about what it does report. Musk, on the other hand, is just promoting evident falsehoods wherever he can. For some reason he's decided we're all living in an Islamic version of 1984 where we all get raped daily and locked up if we try to complain. It's all bollocks.

Reply

[-]

DrinkBen1994@reddit

What the fuck are you talking about? These laws DO exist in the UK and people HAVE been cautioned and arrested over social media posts.

Reply

[-]

CheesyLala@reddit

Calm yourself down angry man. What laws are you even referring to? I didn't say anything about any laws. People are arrested for threats of violence, which is pretty much how it's always been and I doubt most people would think that this should change.

Reply

[-]

SuperTekkers@reddit

I’d rather not talk about it…

Reply

[-]

Picnata@reddit

It’s exaggerated in my opinion. Just don’t incite violence and be shocked when the police knock on your door. Simple. As for the “porn ban”, when I hear people complaining about it, it just clearly shows me the people to avoid, both in real life and online spaces

Reply

[-]

Musashi1596@reddit

This right here is an example of how government overreach can sneak through by disguising it as combating something like porn, so uninformed people can feel morally superior for supporting it.

Reply

[-]

Master-Trick2850@reddit

The ID check seems like it wouldnt be a problem, until you end up with websites that dont want to handle ID checks. They then just flat ojt block your country as Ive seen The other problem is websites like reddit where they can randomly deem subs or your accoint adilt only, forcing you to upload your ID to access it

Reply

[-]

Economy_Ad1994@reddit

That's what happens when you elect an authoritarian government intent on replicating China.

Reply

[-]

Fresh_Relation_7682@reddit

A former student of mine lives in China and most social media is blocked so you can't even access it legally, let alone criticise the Government on it. You have no idea how fortunate you are to live in a democracy

Reply

[-]

After-Temperature585@reddit

Warraloadashite

Reply

[-]

Wannabee_Mexicano@reddit

During Covid, people lost their heads and anyone who wasn’t absolutely petrified of it basically got censored

Reply

[-]

DavidRellim@reddit

...no.

Reply

[-]

edainxxx@reddit

Ciao bro italiano che vive a Londra. Ogni giorno ci stiamo avvicinando verso la distopia 1984 in UK. Per i porno é facilmente bypassabile con un vpn gratis. L’ironia é che io lo mettevo in Italia, dal 12 novembre toccherà usare un altro paese 😂 Il problema sono i post di Twitter/X, online trovi facilmente notizie di chi è stato arrestato. Qua la gente viene arrestata per qualsiasi post remotely critical verso i musulmani o l’immigrazione. Mai mai registrare l’ID su qualsiasi social. Il ban non è solo porno, ma qualsiasi contenuti non safe/nsfw e il backlash é che ha bloccato tanti contenuti utili anche a minori su Reddit etc ex suicide prevention content, help info per vittime di abusi etc

Reply

[-]

spinningdice@reddit

The only instance of someone arrested for controversial content is Graham Linehan as far as I recall for threatening trans women, and he was released shortly after. You shouldn't be able to be arrested for 'controversy' unless it's actually inciting attacks and even then it'd have to be a lot to get it through. I guess they could use Social Media to link you to a terrorist group as they seem to really have it out Palestine Action. Regarding the 'adult content' ban, it feels like an overstep, I'm not photographing my ID or videoing my face for any service where I might experience adult content (I've been asked by discord and xbox), especially after the discord data breach not long ago, so I've just taken to habitually using a VPN.

Reply

[-]

Leading_Resolution99@reddit

\>The only instance of someone arrested for controversial content is Graham Linehan no he's just the only person famous enough to make a fuss that you hear about

Reply

[-]

FrauAmarylis@reddit

But, Catholics don’t use porn! They….

Reply

[-]

Fresh_Relation_7682@reddit

1st part - a haphazard approach to "protecting children" online means requiring to verify your age to access pornographic material. 2nd part - Arrested for posting material that is controversial? No Incitement to violence - yes you could get arrested for that whether it is online or not. This isn't new. Someone made a joke about blowing up Robin Hood Airport in the early days on twitter and got a visit from the Police as an example - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter\_joke\_trial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial)

Reply

[-]

StarShipYear@reddit

>2nd part - Arrested for posting material that is controversial? No >Incitement to violence - yes you could get arrested for that whether it is online or not. >This isn't new. Someone made a joke about blowing up Robin Hood Airport in the early days on twitter and got a visit from the Police as an example - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter\_joke\_trial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial) You are right, it isn't new. However there's more to it than that. Arrests for sending “grossly offensive,” “indecent, obscene or menacing” electronic communications have gone up. 12,000 arrests were made in 2023 under those laws, which is almost 58% higher than in 2019. An argument could be made that since the 2012 case, online activity has increase. Others might argue that the arrests were justified and the numbers tell us "hate" has risen. However it could also be argued that laws are being implemented in a way that overreaches--for example, the interpretation of what "incitement to violence" is, is extremely broad and initial arrests can be made by using it.

Reply

[-]

Good_Lettuce_2690@reddit

\>I've learned of cases where law enforcement has arrested people for social media posts deemed "controversial." That's the right wing narrative. In reality people have been arrested for inciting riots or worse. There's the odd outlier like that memelord douche guy who taught his dog to Zieg Heil that the right point to as "happening to everyone", where in reality that was many years ago now.

Reply

[-]

LewdOfTheBrain@reddit

I know a lot of people that have exited social media as they are scared that what they post will get them arrested, people are getting arrested because people have found that what they have posted is causing offence or even caused someone to be anxious. The UK government is currently trying to get Apple to provide a back door into their encryption software so that they can access private messages, Ofcom want to audit websites and potentially fine then if they are not conforming to the online safety act. There have been massive data breaches that are not being talked about because it would go against the whole digital ID thing.. The situation is that legitimately Russia is more lenient on censorship than the UK is..

Reply

[-]

Optimal-Room-8586@reddit

>Russia is more lenient on censorship than the UK is This is complete horse-shit.

Reply

[-]

LewdOfTheBrain@reddit

Fine I'll remove that bit

Reply

[-]

LillyAtts@reddit

>I know a lot of people that have exited social media as they are scared that what they post will get them arrested I'd be interested to know what they're posting about. I have literally never worried about it.

Reply

[-]

LewdOfTheBrain@reddit

I have never really used Facebook and the like so I have no idea what they are posting but I still don't blame them

Reply

[-]

TurnersCroft@reddit

The hushed up data breeches are a thing worth being concerned about in relation to digital ID along with the companies being sourced to provide the service.

Reply

[-]

Psimo-@reddit

>The situation is that legitimately Russia is more lenient on censorship than the UK is Russia banned Rainbows so I’m having a hard time believing that

Reply

[-]

Success_With_Lettuce@reddit

The arressts are for more than sensationalist headlines lead you to belive. Huge, huge amounts of us are now using VPNs because we see the thinly veiled snooping grab the Govt have done under the pretense of child safety.

Reply

[-]

zippyzebra1@reddit

I have a vpn and there are no issues. Don't incite people to violence on the net and you will be fine.

Reply

[-]

levinyl@reddit

Just get a VPN and no more worrying

Reply

[-]

richyfreeway@reddit

Nothing like funneling you wanking habits through a random server in a random country.

Reply

[-]

Violet351@reddit

People that have been arrested (that I know) of has been due to hate speech and harassment so if you for example call a politician an arse you won’t get arrested but if you threaten them you will.

Reply

[-]

malin7@reddit

I've not ever heard it mentioned in real life but on reddit lots of people lost and continue to be losing their mind over it

Reply

[-]

rosesmellikepoopoo@reddit

It’s 100% been blown up by the right wing media. I’m someone who deeply values my privacy and I’ve not noticed anything different. I still say what I want and do what I want online with 0 repercussions. Also, it’s time to get a good VPN. I recommend nord personally, but have used them for years, and there’s a bunch of good ones.

Reply

[-]

AlbyDj90@reddit (OP)

I got Proton a couple of month ago in this regard!

Reply

[-]

Shitsinhandandclaps@reddit

Yea the free one does the job unless it connected to red states in the us.

Reply

[-]

pr2thej@reddit

Basically cunts are facing consequences whether online or not and they're sad about it.

Reply

[-]

Optimal-Room-8586@reddit

It's been massively blown up by the media, in particular the right-wing media.

Reply

[-]

Competitive_Test6697@reddit

Just need to confirm ID if you want to access NSFW stuff (not just porn) And just dont be an idiot and get all angry and make over the top threats online with all your information there to be reported.

Reply

[-]

AnneKnightley@reddit

I haven’t noticed a real issue outside of the occasional reddit thread or post being inaccessible- which is a bit annoying. I once went on a historical reddit thread and couldn’t access it. But mostly I haven’t had it come up elsewhere.

Reply

[-]

Better-Disk-8807@reddit

>cases where law enforcement has arrested people for social media posts deemed "controversial." Deeply controversial. I suspect the average Redditor's view on this matter will be generally in support of our hate speech laws. This is a distinct issue from the privacy concerns around the Online Safety Act, which I'd assume to be even more controversial still. It's by no means settled, and you'll find very disparate opinions across different types of people. My own opinion is that foreign media has a strong incentive to highlight exceptional cases. I believe the typical American for instance thinks that the UK is much more authoritarian than it actually is, because that subject generates a great deal of clicks and so ad revenue. EU citizens I would generally expect to have a bit more nuance on the subject. It's not ideal, but you probably shouldn't be allowed to openly incite violence against people.

Reply

[-]

dbxp@reddit

The age gating is interesting as we already had a block which was just as effective/ineffective based on the connection. The age gating hasn't really impacted porn as people obviously bypass it however it does impact things like self harm and alcoholism support groups which you really want to be as available as possible.

Reply

[-]

G2022B@reddit

>and I've learned of cases where law enforcement has arrested people for social media posts deemed "controversial." They weren't controversial posts, they were outright inciting others to harm (and worse) people with a different skin colour. Most of the nonsense you have heard will either be from the far right crying about freedom of speech or from Americans who have absolutely no place to comment about freedom.

Reply

[-]

BLightyear67@reddit

My advice is to sign up to as many porn sites as possible so you have plenty of choice once the deadline hits.

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - When replying to submission/post please **make genuine efforts to answer the question given**. Please no jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Reply

Reply to Post

177 Comments