Age verification UK explained: How is it impacting the UK?
This means that age verification tools are now being used on sites where they could access harmful content.
Here's all you need to know about the new rules and how they are being implemented.
Well done to everyone who campaigned to ensure age verification for pornography was in the Online Safety Act!
Today it comes into force and while no doubt there will be some who get around it, it means young kids in particular won't be stumbling on violent and harmful porn. pic.twitter.com/LGtISAmReC
The Online Safety Act is a piece of legislation that received Royal Assent on October 26, 2023, with the aim of protecting children and adults online.
The Government website adds: "It puts a range of new duties on social media companies and search services, giving them legal duties to protect their users from illegal content and content harmful to children.
"The Act gives providers new duties to implement systems and processes to reduce risks their services are used for illegal activity, and to take down illegal content when it does appear.
As of July 25, internet platforms have a legal duty to protect children from harmful content.
Companies within the scope of the act must introduce safety measures as part of this, which include age verification.
The Guardian reports: "This means all pornography sites must have in place rigorous age-checking procedures."
They continued: "Social media platforms and large search engines must also prevent children from accessing pornography and material that promotes or encourages suicide, self-harm and eating disorders."
Platforms will also have to suppress other material that could be potentially harmful to children.
This could include "the promotion of dangerous stunts, encouraging the use of harmful substances and enabling bullying".
Ofcom, the media regulator, has set out a number of ways websites can verify the age of users.
This can be done through credit card checks, photo ID matching and estimating age using a selfie.
Whatever format platforms choose, they must be "technically accurate, robust, reliable and fair," BBC News reports.
Pornhub and a number of other major adult websites have confirmed they will introduce enhanced age checks, BBC News reports.
Recommended reading:
90 per cent of passwords can be hacked in under 6 hours (How to improve yours)
Tech expert reveals 5 habits that are killing your iPhone battery life
Mobile expert reveals 5 ways you can save money on your phone bill
Reddit has already introduced checks to stop people aged under 18 from looking at "certain mature content", while X and Grindr have committed to this as well.
Discord gives UK users a choice of face or ID scanning as a way to verify their age, after testing methods, and Bluesky says it will give UK users a range of different verification options, external.
BBC News adds: "Many more services which allow sexually explicit material may need to bring in measures to comply with the new rules."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
4 hours ago
- The Sun
Labour's border chaos is fuelling public fury and fear as dangerous foreign offenders vanish into thin air
Labour's not smashing it IT is little more than a year since Labour came to power promising to smash the people-smuggling gangs. Instead they have smashed the economy — with inflation up, unemployment up and business confidence at a record low. The only significant growth is in the number of illegal migrants coming here in small boats. Already over 25,000 have arrived this year — a 50 per cent rise on the 2024 figure by this stage, which was shocking enough. That number is dwarfed by the UK's astonishing 700,000 population increase in just a year — almost entirely due to legal immigration — which itself is utterly unsustainable. The arrival of thousands of mostly undocumented illegal migrants is symptomatic of just how badly Britain has lost control of its borders. It's not just the millions of pounds it costs taxpayers every day to shower the migrants with handouts and put them up in hotels, nor the fact that so many of them find black market jobs. Most of the arrivals are young men of fighting age — yet the authorities seem to have little idea who they are, even if they end up in court. National emergency We discovered earlier this week that the number of foreign sex offenders and violent criminals in prison in England and Wales is at a record high, and that 40 per cent of people charged with sex attacks in the capital were foreign nationals. Now we learn foreign criminals are simply walking free mid-trial and disappearing under false names because of a dangerous 'disconnect' between prosecutors and immigration enforcement. It is little wonder that people — not least mothers — worry about migrant hotels on their doorsteps, or that protests are growing, or that polls show immigration is the number one issue concerning voters. So what is the Government doing about this national emergency? Reform UK's rising star Laila Cunningham It seems to have no plan, beyond a sketchy one-in-one-out deal with France and setting up a spy unit to track anyone on social media discussing anti-migrant sentiment or two-tier justice. While Britain continues to house soaring numbers of uninvited guests in four-star hotels, America has seen a massive drop in illegal border crossings because tough detention centres and deportations await those who do. President Donald Trump has shown the problem CAN be tackled, if only the political will exists. The Government, which ditched the Rwanda scheme — the only viable deterrent — as its first act in power, has shown precious little will so far. It's about time Sir Keir Starmer realised the urgency of the situation... and started taking tough action of his own. 1
Metro
7 hours ago
- Metro
Gary Busey pleads guilty to sexual misconduct charges: 'It was not accidental'
Actor Gary Busey has pleaded guilty to criminal sexual misconduct. Busey, 81, has admitted that he purposely touched a woman inappropriately at a horror film convention in New Jersey in 2022, charges he previously denied. The Point Break actor told the judge, 'It was not an accidental touching,' according to The Guardian. Prosecutors have now agreed to dismiss three other counts of criminal sexual contact as well as one count of attempted criminal sexual contact, in exchange for Busey's guilty plea. The charges relate to incidents at the Monster-Mania convention, held from August 12 to 14, 2022, at a DoubleTree Hilton hotel in Cherry Hill, a suburb of Philadelphia. Five women accused Busey of inappropriate touching during photo opportunities at the event. According to authorities, Busey allegedly grabbed the buttocks of two women and attempted to unhook a third woman's bra while putting his face near her breasts, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported. The case garnered renewed attention this week after Busey's attorney, Blair Zwillman, attempted to have the indictment dismissed. Zwillman argued that law enforcement had conducted a 'faulty' investigation and failed to interview potentially relevant witnesses. However, Camden County prosecutor Keith Carmy countered that extensive witness testimony had already been presented to the grand jury and that there was no evidence to suggest exculpatory material had been withheld. Judge Gwendolyn Blue ultimately denied the motion to dismiss. Following Busey's guilty plea, she tentatively scheduled a virtual sentencing hearing for September 18. Busey reportedly had difficulty hearing during the court proceedings despite wearing a hearing aid. He now faces a sentence that may include one to five years of probation, financial penalties, and the mandatory submission of a DNA sample. The actor initially denied any wrongdoing. 'None of that happened,' he told TMZ. 'It was a partner, a camera lady and me, and two girls … it took less than 10 seconds, and they left. Then they made up a story that I assaulted them sexually and I did not. Nothing happened, it's all false.' While Busey is often remembered for his Oscar-nominated portrayal of rock-and-roll pioneer Buddy Holly in The Buddy Holly Story (1978), his later career has been overshadowed by troubling legal and personal issues. More Trending He has amassed over 100 credits in film and television, frequently appearing in offbeat or villainous roles in films such as Lethal Weapon, Point Break, and Under Siege. This is not Busey's first run-in with the law. In 1995, he was hospitalized following a near-fatal cocaine overdose and was subsequently charged with drug offenses. He has also faced previous allegations of spousal abuse, and during the 2011 season of Celebrity Apprentice, a female employee accused him of sexual assault. The actor has not made a public statement since entering his plea. Got a story? If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@ calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you. MORE: Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni 'come face-to-face' for first time since It Ends With Us war MORE: Tom Hiddleston's fiance Zawe Ashton reveals 'toxic' messages from family after wedding claims MORE: Fast and Furious villain warns they're 'ready to go' for final sequel appearance
Times
8 hours ago
- Times
Online Safety Act threatens free speech, says Elon Musk's X
Elon Musk's X platform has claimed the Online Safety Act, the 'heavy-handed' regulator Ofcom, and a planned police monitoring unit are harming free speech in the UK. The company published a post on X titled 'What Happens When Oversight Becomes Overreach' criticising what it saw was a triple-pronged attack on free expression. The post said the 'act's laudable intentions are at risk of being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach. Without a more balanced, collaborative approach, free speech will suffer.' Ofcom was taking an 'aggressive approach' to enforcement, X said, at the same time as publishing plans to force companies to take down hate speech proactively, which it called a 'double compliance' burden. A national police unit proposed by the Home Office to monitor social media for signs of unrest 'has set off alarm bells for free speech advocates who characterise it as excessive and potentially restrictive', the company claimed. A political row has broken out over the act, which introduced measures to protect children last week. A video of a speech in parliament by the shadow Home Office minister, Katie Lam, about sexual crimes committed by grooming gangs was restricted on X after being flagged as 'harmful content'. Nigel Farage and his Reform UK party have painted it as 'dystopian' legislation and vowed to repeal the laws. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, said that Farage was siding with predators like Jimmy Savile. Kyle and Ofcom have also come under pressure from US Republicans this week, who have been in the UK to express their concerns about the act's impact on free speech. Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has called the act 'the UK online censorship law'. He also published communications from the UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to social media platforms during the Southport riots last year that expressed concerns about the use of the expression 'two-tier policing'. X said that the act 'is at risk of seriously infringing on the public's right to free expression' and parliament 'made a conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of online safety'. It claimed the act's measures 'prevent adults from encountering illegal content and steps to ensure age verification that limit adults' anonymity online'. Ofcom denies this. In the wake of the Southport riots, Ofcom proposed measures that would require social media platforms to remove hate speech from feeds. Platforms that are at high or medium risk of carrying hate speech would take it out of algorithmic feeds if it is potentially illegal. X called this a 'double compliance' burden on top of the act. Ofcom admitted the proposal 'has the potential to interfere with users' rights to freedom of expression and association.' Diana Johnson, the Home Office minister, last week proposed a national police unit that would monitor social media for signs of anti-migrant disorder. PATRICK PLEUL/REUTERS X said: 'While positioned as a safety measure, it clearly goes far beyond that intent.' The company said 'a balanced approach is the only way to protect individual liberties, encourage innovation and safeguard children'. While the X post was not attributed to Musk, he retweeted an answer from his Grok chatbot that said: 'Evidence shows Labour has suppressed aspects of free speech via the Online Safety Act's content monitoring.' Ofcom said: 'The new rules require tech firms to tackle criminal content and prevent children from seeing defined types of material that's harmful to them. There is no requirement on them to restrict legal content for adult users. In fact, they must carefully consider how they protect users' rights to freedom of expression while keeping people safe.' Imran Ahmed, the CEO and founder of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, said: 'The Online Safety Act is a necessary step toward protecting our children in the digital world. Years of work have gone into crafting a law that addresses the real dangers kids face in online spaces, including exploitation, suicide promotion and self-harm. Those who propose to scrap this vital law must explain why they think these heinous online activities are tolerable.' A government spokesman said: 'It is demonstrably false that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech. As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression. Failure to meet either obligation can lead to severe penalties, including fines of up to 10% of global revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater. 'The Act is not designed to censor political debate and does not require platforms to age gate any content other than those which present the most serious risks to children such as pornography or suicide and self-harm content. 'Platforms have had several months to prepare for this law. It is a disservice to their users to hide behind deadlines as an excuse for failing to properly implement it.'
