The U.K. Keeps Threatening To Censor American Tech Companies
X has begun restricting content related to Gaza for its U.K. users, and Reddit has implemented age-verification measures to view posts about cigars.
On Monday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio) accused the United Kingdom's Office of Communications (Ofcom) of threatening American companies "with censorship." Jordan's accusation centers on communications sent to Rumble and Reddit by Ofcom detailing the level of cooperation expected under the country's Online Safety Act (OSA).
Enacted in 2023 and enforced by Ofcom, the OSA mandates online platforms to change their algorithms and moderate content deemed harmful for children, including pornography, bullying, and "abusive or hateful content." Some sites must implement age-verification measures. The law also criminalizes sending "false information intended to cause non-trivial harm." It requires platforms to protect all users from seeing illegal content, including that which incites violence or is related to illegal immigration or "racially or religiously aggravated public order offences."
The OSA broadly applies to any tech company with a significant number of U.K. users or if the U.K. is a target market. Noncompliant companies can incur fines of up to $23.8 million(approximately 18 million pounds) or 10 percent of their global revenue, whichever is higher, for each violation. "Senior managers" could also face prison time for violations. In July, the sections regarding age verification and content for children took effect.
Companies have responded with varying degrees of compliance. X has begun restricting content related to Gaza for its U.K. users, and Reddit has implemented age-verification measures to view posts about cigars, according to Politico. Microsoft announced that it had implemented age-verification steps for users in the United Kingdom. Others, such as Gab, a far-right social media site which received a formal "notice for information" from Ofcom in April, have simply ceased operations in the country.
Taking a different approach, Wikimedia Foundation (which owns Wikipedia) filed suit earlier this year, arguing that parts of the law would "undermine the privacy and safety of Wikipedia's volunteer contributors" and essentially leave consumers with a poorer service.
Rumble has yet to comply with the OSA and contends it falls outside its reach because it lacks a substantial U.K. user base and the U.K. isn't its "target market." However, in the email exchange between Ofcom and Rumble, Ofcom warns Rumble that it will "monitor Rumble's position carefully," insisting that Rumble "take the steps required by the Act" for a market that Rumble denies exists.
Reddit, which has complied with the law, received a letter from Ofcom in 2023, where the regulator states its goal is to establish a "formal regulatory relationship" and tells Reddit it "expect[s] our supervisory engagement to evolve further."
The law has not gone unnoticed by the Trump administration. In February, Vice President J.D. Vance criticized European free speech protections. In March, the U.S. State Department voiced concerns to Ofcom about the OSA's potential to infringe on free speech. Recently, President Donald Trump joked about the law with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, saying, "I don't think he's going to censor my site, because I say only good things," per Gizmodo.
Since 2023, 292 people have been charged with communication offenses under the law, which faces significant opposition in the U.K.—both from a petition for its repeal that has exceeded 457,000 signatures and calls for repeal from Reform U.K. leader Nigel Farage. Meanwhile, the U.K.'s secretary of state for science, innovation, and technology has labeled anyone fighting for a repeal of the law "on the side of predators."
These are not the first instances of Ofcom telling American tech companies how to conduct business. Ofcom has repeatedly targeted American tech companies, such as Microsoft, Meta, and Netflix, for alleged speech violations, both before the OSA was passed and in the lead-up to its implementation.
The U.K.'s acts to repress the speech of its citizens are bad enough; it has no right to infringe on the business of American companies.
