The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, implemented in July 2023, is facing renewed scrutiny as concerns mount that restrictions intended to protect minors online may be causing unintended consequences. While proponents argue the law is necessary to shield young people from harmful content, critics contend it is stifling legitimate expression and creating a climate of censorship.
The Act requires websites and platforms to utilize age verification systems to restrict minors’ access to certain content deemed harmful, abusive, or explicit. This has led to a debate over the effectiveness and potential overreach of these systems. Some digital rights activists have characterized the law as a threat to internet freedom, arguing it legitimizes “free speech” discourse on the political right.
Paris Marx, a Canadian tech critic and host of the “Tech Won’t Save Us” podcast, recently spent time in the UK assessing the impact of the new rules. Marx remains skeptical of claims that the law has created a widespread censorship regime, but acknowledges legitimate concerns about its implementation. “There are legitimate concerns about the law, which I’ll gain into a little later, but a lot of the attacks levied at it are politically and economically motivated, and effectively accept advantage of how social platforms reward sensationalism,” Marx wrote in a recent blog post.
The debate over online safety regulations extends beyond the UK. In the United States, discussions surrounding social media restrictions for teenagers are gaining traction. An article published by The Economist on February 12, 2026, argues against outright bans, stating that such measures “will do more harm than good.” The article acknowledges the understandable desire to protect young people’s safety and health, but suggests that bans are not the optimal solution.
Similar arguments against restrictions have been made in the context of food assistance programs. A blog post from Georgetown University Law Center argues that restricting food choices within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is insufficient to address hunger and obesity and “will do far more harm than good.”
The potential for unintended consequences of restrictive policies is a recurring theme. A 2022 study published in BMJ Global Health examined the unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policies, including mandates, passports, and restrictions, concluding that they “may cause more harm than good.” The study, authored by Kevin Bardosh and a team of researchers from institutions including the University of Washington, the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and Harvard Medical School, highlights the complexities of public health interventions and the need to carefully consider potential downsides.
The Economist also recently published an opinion piece asserting that restrictions generally “do more harm than good,” linking the sentiment to a broader distrust of elites. The article referenced ongoing legal proceedings related to Jeffrey Epstein, criticizing the Department of Justice for a perceived lack of progress in filing charges over the past seven years.
As of February 17, 2026, the UK government has not responded to specific criticisms of the Online Safety Act, and no amendments to the legislation are currently scheduled for review. The debate over the balance between online safety and freedom of expression continues, with no clear resolution in sight.
