Use Reddit? Come join our Reddit Sub as another place to follow the community!
We use affiliate links to earn us some pennies. Learn more.

The fightback against regulations to lock down the internet in the UK is heating up, with multiple big groups joining together with a firm statement.

An open letter has been sent to UK policymakers urging them to fight the actual causes of online harm, rather than repeatedly taking steps to lock down the internet and force us all to verify our ID just to do basic things. Which increases tracking, creates more places for private data to leak and a whole host of other problems. In terms of gaming, it can be a big problem for preservation too for any game that has online features.

The groups / companies who came together to sign the statement include:

  • Big Brother Watch
  • Defend Digital Me
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • ExpressVPN
  • Gamers Voice
  • Global Partners Digital
  • Index on Censorship
  • Internet Society
  • IPVanish
  • Mozilla
  • Mullvad VPN
  • NO2ID
  • Open Rights Group
  • Privacymatters
  • Proton
  • Stop Killing Games
  • Tor Project
  • Tuta
  • VPN Trust Initiative

The full statement:

Joint Statement: UK policymakers must prioritise addressing the roots of online harm, not undermining the open web

The open Internet is a global public resource that has long since become foundational to the flourishing of individuals, businesses, and societies. Digital technologies and the open web allow us to foster connections, access educational resources, express ourselves, and work together to build a better society. The open web is also an engine for economic growth, innovation and creativity: anyone can build successful services and products, and reach people across the globe. At the core of this openness lie open standards, shared protocols, and interoperability across borders as the default.

This openness and the opportunities it affords are coming under threat in the UK. In attempting to respond to tough questions around online harms, UK policymakers are currently pursuing blunt policy interventions like access bans that will do little to improve young people’s experiences online, and instead undermine the web and infringe on human rights.

Now that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill has passed, ministers are consulting on which platforms and specific features should be placed behind age gates as part of a national consultation on online harms. This approach focuses on restricting young people’s access, rather than ensuring services are designed to uphold their rights and interests by default. Crucially, even targeted age restrictions of specific features could mean that all users are required to complete intrusive age assurance processes to retain full access. Restrictions under consultation include curfews for young users and wider restrictions on children’s access to online services, with implications across internet services from video games, VPNs to even static websites. Implementing such access restrictions hinges on all users having to verify their ages, not just young people, and places the burden on providers to comply in ways they consider appropriate.

As the UK’s experiences with age assurance under the Online Safety Act have shown, deploying age assurance technologies at scale comes with significant trade-offs: Existing age assurance technologies are either insufficiently accurate, undermine privacy and data security, or are not widely available across populations. Beyond concerns related to age assurance technologies themselves, mandating their implementation across an ever-expanding list of core internet services undermines the decentralised nature of the web, its accessibility and creates serious new security threats. Specifically, age assurance mandates risk cementing the dominance of gatekeeper app stores, operating systems, and platforms’ walled gardens. They also risk turning the web into a patchwork of age-gated jurisdictions, undermining free expression and access to information, rather than a global resource accessible by all. Finally, age assurance technologies create massive data risks for all users, as demonstrated by serious breaches of UK users’ government ID data.

The internet is an essential resource that enables young people to engage with the world in a way that transcends their immediate environment, as well as find information they may not feel safe to access offline, such as about family abuse, politics, or their sexuality. At the same time, however, digital spaces can carry risks for different populations, including young people. These risks are real and require thoughtful policy interventions that address the root of the issue, not just simplistic policies like access bans. Of particular importance is the way that most online spaces are not built with users’ rights or choices in mind, but optimised for extracting value for online platforms. Underlying this is often the massive collection of user data used to target, lock-in and surveil users—feeding platforms ads-based business models.

Addressing these harmful practices and holding tech companies accountable for providing safe online spaces that strengthen, not undermine users’ choices and agency, must be the priority of UK policymakers. Now is the time to hold tech to account, not undermine the open internet. Signatories of this letter remain ready to provide expertise, working with policymakers to ensure that measures that aim to keep children safe online are effective, proportional and enable them to exercise all their human rights.

You can find the announcements across various websites from the included orgs like ones from Mozilla, EFF, Stop Killing Games and others.

Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Tags: Misc
34 Likes
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly checked on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly. You can follow me personally on Mastodon [External Link].
See more from me
All posts need to follow our rules. Please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Readers can also email us for any issues or concerns.
23 comments
Page: 2/2
  Go to:

tohur 3 hours ago
Quoting: LoudTechie
Quoting: Caldathras
Quoting: LoudTechieYour boss can't fire you any moment he likes, yet you still fear his power.
The same is true for politicians.
Actually, here in Canada, your boss CAN fire you any moment he likes. I know as I used to be a business owner and employer. There is a whole list of government-proscribed reasons why you cannot be fired (race, gender, theft without proof, layoff if he rehires, etc.) but your boss can still fire you without providing any reason at all.

Where politicians are concerned, unless they commit a crime, they are safe until the next election which gives them a safety net that relies on the voter's notoriously short memory. The party system doesn't help, because voters sometimes overlook individual foibles in favor of their preferred political party. So politicians have a lot less to fear from their "employers" (the voters).

Myself, where politicians are concerned, I don't have a short memory.
Okay, my boss can't fire me any moment he likes and I still fear his power(since firing someone after their introduction period, without a government whitelisted reason and proof is illegal).
That's crazy.
I don't know where you live but in most places your boss CAN fire you anytime they please

Last edited by tohur on 11 May 2026 at 11:50 am UTC
Eike 3 hours ago
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: tohurI don't know where you live but in most places your boss CAN fire you anytime they please
Germany here. We have a "Kündigungsschutzgesetz" (Dismissal Protection Act). You need to have actual objective reasons, and these are limited to reason in behaviour, reason in person and urgent reasons due to "urgent operational reasons" of the company. The employee can fight the dismissal in court. (My wild guess is that the usual result of a successful trial, at least in smaller companys, would be money, not continuing to work for someone who doesn't want you.)
LoudTechie 2 hours ago
Quoting: tohur
Quoting: LoudTechie
Quoting: Caldathras
Quoting: LoudTechieYour boss can't fire you any moment he likes, yet you still fear his power.
The same is true for politicians.
Actually, here in Canada, your boss CAN fire you any moment he likes. I know as I used to be a business owner and employer. There is a whole list of government-proscribed reasons why you cannot be fired (race, gender, theft without proof, layoff if he rehires, etc.) but your boss can still fire you without providing any reason at all.

Where politicians are concerned, unless they commit a crime, they are safe until the next election which gives them a safety net that relies on the voter's notoriously short memory. The party system doesn't help, because voters sometimes overlook individual foibles in favor of their preferred political party. So politicians have a lot less to fear from their "employers" (the voters).

Myself, where politicians are concerned, I don't have a short memory.
Okay, my boss can't fire me any moment he likes and I still fear his power(since firing someone after their introduction period, without a government whitelisted reason and proof is illegal).
That's crazy.
I don't know where you live but in most places your boss CAN fire you anytime they please
I'm uncomfortable revealing on a public forum my exact nation, but I will point out that according to Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European union every worker has the right to protection against unjustified dismissal.
This is enforced through a mix of collective bargaining agreements, national law, local rules, subsidized rights groups and EU law.

Edit:
Clarification The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Is kind of an upgraded version of the Universal Declaration of Human rights signed by all EU nations.
Its highest court is the ECJ.
Signing and adhering to it's a minimum requirement for EU membership.
This's not some Nordic or rich nation luxury in the EU a poor Romanian or Italian has those rights too.
Even most EU Candidates follow these rules.

The exact implementation differs, due to the EU principle of subsidiary, but it's not something you can just take from an EU citizen.
Currently even the United Kingdom, which left the EU to weaken worker protections abides by this principle.

Last edited by LoudTechie on 11 May 2026 at 1:33 pm UTC
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Reward Tiers: Patreon Logo Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal Logo PayPal.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
Login / Register