The Online Safety Act humiliates us all

New Statesman​

a day ago

Illustration by Gary Waters / Ikon Images
Fear not, Britain is healing. Now you must risk having your identity being leaked if you want to watch porn. Our economy will lose no more precious dynamism to that wasteful outlet, and we will soon attain the highest sustained growth in the G7. Porn-mad illegal immigrants will reckon they are better off in pervy France. Lastly, of course, once our pent-up ranks inevitably take to robust exercise, our national security will be secured by a new breed of super-fit super-soldiers.
Economic stability, secure borders, and national security – remember those? They were the new government's quite reasonable 'foundations'. Them fastened, Starmer was to pursue a happily honed briefcase of just five missions. The country needed to kickstart growth, future-proof the NHS, smash the class ceiling, make the streets safe and discover abundant clean energy.
And so, if leadership is the art of prioritisation, it is unclear why Keir Starmer's party is spending so much energy on the Online Safety Act. As an exercise it does not appear to support any of the main goals. It seems only to have created unnecessary strain in national politics.
At the time of writing, there are more than 450,000 people with doubts. That is how many signatories there are on the petition, 'Repeal the Online Safety Act' on Parliament's website. The petition is supported by both left and right, Nigel Farage and Owen Jones.
The Act was meant to stop children seeing harmful content online. It demanded that websites verify users' ages and withhold sensitive content until they do so. Now, any adult who wants to watch porn must upload a driver's license, a scan of their face or another form of identification the site they wish to use.
For too many adults, age requirements amount to a ban. The fear of extortion and humiliation are just too high. There is already a lucrative blackmail industry based around getting that information and extorting people with the threat of public release. A country with a rich population being forced to attach identifying information to their consumption will attract hackers from around the world.
Data is also leaked for emotional, impulsive reasons. In 2015, vigilante hackers leaked the userbase of adultery arrangement website Ashley Madison. A similar story broke this week, with eerie advances in the tech. Tea was a site for American women to gossip about men. In revenge, hackers published an interactive map of America with a pin on the homes of every user, which shows their name and picture when you click it.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
And anyway, practically, the government cannot produce first-rate technological solutions. Most Brits older than ten will remember the way the government's home-made tracker app came out the box already creaking. So, most Brits older than ten will have about zero faith in the state's ability to outwit motivated hackers. Luckily, most Brits older than ten are also able to outwit the state themselves. After the Act came into force, the UK app stores' charts were all topped by virtual private network (VPN) apps. These apps, which anyone can use, allow users to spoof their location as if they were in another country, thereby sidestepping the government's measures. Secretary of State for science, innovation and technology Peter Kyle was reduced to asking people to follow his law and not download VPNs.
Leadership is also the art of explanation. You must delineate a series of because-answers connecting decisions to the overall goals, and also to the everyday, personal interests of your electorate. If they raise doubts, you should explain why the decision makes sense. If you cannot, you should rethink the decision.
The Navy Seal leadership manual I consulted for this piece said the worst thing you can do is tell your troops, in the manner of an exhausted parent, 'because I said so!' Its musclebound author apparently did not imagine he would need to caution against an even laster last resort: 'because if you don't, you support paedophiles.'
And yet! The government could have treated its public as intelligent adults with whom it can reason. Instead, Kyle posted: 'If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators.' On Sky News the same day, he said 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.'
Starmer has admirable qualities, but he is also a moralising disciplinarian reflexively becoming more and more himself amid the troubles of a hard first year. Labour struggles, people get locked up for tweets. Labour struggles, people can't protest for Palestine. Labour struggles, people can't watch porn. Now, keeping children away from porn is as wise, if not wiser, than keeping them away from cigarettes. But even if we could enforce it, which we can't, this policy is not the way to do it. The government should withdraw the act and Kyle should apologise to Farage. Starmer, meanwhile, should stick to the strategy.
[See more: Bonnie Blue has no limits]
Related