Do tell? What is it about then?oh yes sorry I forgot it’s about spoiling everyone’s fun 
Come on now, the government admitted it can't scan encrypted messages without breaking encryption for everyone. They're asking tech companies to do something that's mathematically impossible while claiming it's "for the children."
If this were really about protecting kids, why are actual child protection experts and abuse survivors opposing it? Why does the bill give ministers the power to rewrite the rules without Parliament? Why does it cover "legal but harmful" content that has nothing to do with children?
The comparison to the Stasi isn't hyperbole, Lancaster University researchers said this surveillance would "go further than the Stasi ever could." When Wikipedia threatens to pull out of the UK entirely rather than comply, maybe that should tell you something?
Look at the pattern: EU's Chat Control, US KOSA, UK Online Safety Act, all using identical "protect the children" language while building mass surveillance infrastructure. It's the oldest trick in the authoritarian playbook: pick something nobody can oppose publicly (who's against protecting children?), then use it to justify unprecedented surveillance powers.
The real kicker? They admit the technology doesn't even exist to do what they claim they want to do. But they're passing the laws anyway, giving themselves the power to demand it later. That's not child protection, that's building surveillance infrastructure and waiting for the tech to catch up.
If they cared about kids, they'd fund education, mental health services, and go after actual predators. This is about control, plain and simple.
Interestingly, I’ve only seen men complaining and objecting to the new act.
Yes, I’m also glad that it’s extended to social media too!.
You’re not a parent so you have zero idea how difficult it is to protect them, adding on adult content filters onto the home Wi-Fi is it gonna cut it. What about when they are out and at school, what their friends are showing them on their phones? I fully support the Online Safety Act.
For starters if it can prevent them to having a fucked up view on what sex is and women, the less incels, misogynists,, women hating murderers and abusers there will be in the be in the world
Simplistic view or not I live in hope.
I get you're worried about your kids; any good parent would be. But here's the thing: the government already has all the tools it needs to go after actual predators and illegal content. They can already prosecute individuals sharing CSAM, shut down illegal sites, and investigate crimes. What they're doing now is something completely different.
You mentioned only seeing men complaining, but that's not entirely true. Some of the strongest opposition comes from women's rights groups, domestic violence organisations, and LGBTQ advocates who rely on encrypted communications for safety. Journalists, activists, abuse survivors, they all need privacy to stay safe.
About the "fucked up view on sex" concern, I hear you, but think about this: kids in abusive homes often use encrypted messaging to reach out for help. Teens questioning their sexuality use private forums to find support. Young people in controlling households need secure ways to access mental health resources. This law puts all of that at risk.
The real irony? The actual bad actors, the predators, and the extremists will move to other platforms or use tools that the government can't touch. Meanwhile, regular people lose their privacy, and vulnerable kids lose safe spaces to seek help.
Parenting in the digital age is hard. But the solution isn't to destroy everyone's privacy. It's better digital literacy education, open conversations with kids, and yes, age-appropriate controls that don't require spying on everyone.
The government is exploiting your legitimate fears to grab powers that won't protect your kids but will be used for broader surveillance. That's not protecting children, that's using children as an excuse to monitor everyone.
