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 — Jess Asato MP (@Jess4Lowestoft) July 25, 2025
What is the Online Safety Act?
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.
Why is age verification being used on the internet?
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".
How is age verification utilised by platforms?
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.
Which sites will require age verification?
Pornhub and a number of other major adult websites have confirmed they will introduce enhanced age checks, BBC News reports.
Recommended reading:
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
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Ban social media for kids and give them 'dumbphones' says counter terror expert
Jonathan Hall KC, the UK's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, pointed to the case of a teen who wanted to copy Southport monster Axel Rudakubana and urged ministers to 'be bold' Giving kids "dumbphones" and banning them from social media is the only way to steer them away from extreme violence online, a counter-terror expert has said. Jonathan Hall urged ministers to "be bold" and bring in an Australian-style ban. He warned that age verification and new laws around algorithms will not be enough to stop teenagers like Southport killer Axel Rudakubana. He said in one recent case a teenager "wanted to copy" Rudakubana after being inspired online. Mr Hall, the UK's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and State Threat Legislation, told LBC children "have got to stop using social media". He said that although the Online Safety Act will achieve "precious little" because of the magnitude of threats kids face online. He said: "They've got to deal with child sex abuse, suicide videos, self-harm. By the time they get to just straightforward gory violence and terrorism material or knives, it's going to be some way down the line. "So I think you have to be realistic about this. I mean, if you want my honest answer, and I've looked at this topic for a long time now, I think that children have got to stop using social media, full stop." He pointed to Australia's decision to outlaw social media use for under 16s. This will come into force in December. He also suggested that children should have "dumbphones" - the opposite of smartphones, which are used for calls and texting and little else. Mr Hall said: "I think we need to go down the line that Australia has pioneered. I mean, in my dreams, we would just have kids with dumb phones and a few apps, and that would be distributed on the NHS. And if the government was really bold, they would grasp this bull by the horns. But I'm afraid the Online Safety Act is not going to be the solution." Warning of the dangers of online violence, he said: "I mean, there was some boy arrested recently he wanted to copy the Southport killer. I mean, unbelievable. They get all this from the internet." He said counter-terror officers are increasingly focused on " violence fixated individuals" like Rudakubana. The killer was 17 when he murdered three girls and seriously injured a further 10 people including eight children in a senseless attack in Southport. He had been referred to the Prevent programme three times in the years before the killings. As a schoolboy he showed an alarming fascination with the Manchester Arena bombing, the IRA, mass shootings and the 2017 London Bridge attack. But a string of errors led to his case being discontinued. Describing those at risk of becoming dangeorusly fixated with violence, Mr Hall said: "I think it's lonely and lost children. "I mean, look at the Southport killer, for example. Look at Nicholas Prosper (who killed his mother and two siblings and planned to murder around 30 at his former school in Luton). "Do you remember he's the boy who kills three family members and was also planning a school massacre, I should say but were fortunately stopped from doing it.."
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
By likening Nigel Farage to Jimmy Savile, Peter Kyle has handed Reform a free gift
Just when Nigel Farage and his tiny parliamentary party were beginning to be exposed as shrill and clueless, Peter Kyle, one of the most promising cabinet ministers, handed them a free gift. By saying that the Reform leader is on the side of 'people like Jimmy Savile', Kyle destroys his own arguments for the Online Safety Act. The attempt to link Farage with a notorious child sex abuser is gratuitous and offensive. It makes Kyle seem desperate and allows Farage to pose as the wronged party – Farage's criticisms of the Act seem more credible after Kyle's outburst than before. It is surprising that Kyle has chosen to use this slur when Labour people were so indignant – and rightly so – when Boris Johnson used it against Keir Starmer. That was when Johnson was desperate: Sue Gray's report on lockdown parties in Downing Street had just been published and Johnson wanted some way of deflecting attention. His attack on Starmer had nothing to do with Gray's report. It was an aside referring to Starmer's time as director of public prosecutions, during which, Johnson said, 'he spent most of his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, as far as I can make out'. But it was more relevant than Kyle's attack on Farage. It is factually correct that the Crown Prosecution Service failed to prosecute Savile when Starmer was in charge, and it is unclear whether it could have done more to bring Savile to justice at the time. But Farage has nothing to do with Savile – at all. Kyle's attempt to smear the Reform leader was phrased thus on Sky News: 'If people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online, and Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Nothing could be better calculated to distract from the real issue, which is whether Farage's pledge to repeal the Online Safety Act is a sensible one. The Reform rhetoric about 'authoritarian' and 'dystopian' legislation is overdone, and Farage admitted yesterday that he didn't know how he would protect children online instead. But rather of exposing the weakness of Farage's arguments, Kyle allowed his opponent to protest on X that his comment was 'disgusting' and to demand an apology. Kyle responded: 'If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that.' This is a terrible way to conduct a public debate. There are well-founded concerns about the Online Safety Act, which seems to put unworkable obligations on non-profit-making websites while doing little to ensure that the big tech companies behave more responsibly. A lot of well-informed people said it was badly drafted legislation even before it was passed by the Conservative government two years ago. Kyle is now overseeing the coming into effect of provisions of the Act relating to age-verification, and instead of acting on the concerns that have been expressed, he has ploughed ahead – in effect accusing anyone who has doubts, including for example Ella Dorn of the New Statesman, of being aligned with Savile. When Johnson gratuitously dragged Savile's name into his attempt to save his disintegrating premiership, the disgust at his deliberate attempt to invoke conspiracy theories driven by fears of paedophilia was felt across the political spectrum. Munira Mirza, Johnson's adviser who was consulted in advance, begged him not to do it, and resigned when he did. Kyle should not be using the same disreputable tactic, which not only speaks volumes about this government's self-confidence but also allows Reform off the hook. Only this morning, Sarah Pochin, Reform's newest MP, was struggling to explain what her party's policy on small boats actually is. All she could propose was that Britain should 'do something drastic', by which she seemed to suggest that we should let migrants drown in the Channel. If the next election really is a fight between Labour and Reform, Labour must fight it better than this.
ITV News
3 hours ago
- ITV News
Technology Minister accuses Nigel Farage of being on the side of 'Jimmy Savile' in online safety row
The Technology Minister Peter Kyle has accused Reform leader Nigel Farage of being on the side of "extreme pornographers" and "Jimmy Savile," over his pledge to scrap the Online Safety Act if elected to government. The comments were made while Kyle was defending the act and the recently implemented age verification checks which have come in to force on websites hosting harmful or adult content. Asked about Farage's criticism of the new laws and promise to scrap them should he come in to power, Kyle said: 'I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he's going to overturn these laws. So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Kyle initially made the comments speaking to Sky News, with Farage branding them disgusting and calling on the minister to apologise. Former Reform Party Chairman Zia Yusuf also expressed outrage, describing Kyle's remarks as 'one of the most outrageous and disgusting things a politician has said in the political arena". He added: 'Talking about Jimmy Savile in that way does nothing other than denigrate the victims of Jimmy Savile.' Despite this, Kyle refused to apologise when pushed to do so in a later interview with ITV News, standing by his earlier comments. "If you're against the Online Safety Act and want to overturn it you are on the side of predators and pedophiles," Kyle insisted. "Nigel Farage is therefore on the side of predators and pedophiles and he needs to be called out for it." "Nigel Farage is therefore on the side of predators and pedophiles," Peter Kyle insisted. Concerns had been raised from both Farage's party and other MPs, as well as the public, that in recent days there has been a large spike in the download of VPNs, services that allow users to bypass age verification checks by pretending they are browsing from another country. Some are concerned rather than protect children, the new laws are too easily avoided and may end up pushing children to darker corners of the internet. Reform UK have also voiced specific objection to what they see as an attack on free speech. On Monday Reform announced their policy would be to scrap the entire act, describing it as a 'dystopian' infringement of free speech. Addressing a press conference at Reform's London headquarters, Zia Yusuf claimed the act did 'absolutely nothing to protect children' but worked to 'suppress freedom of speech' and 'force social media companies to censor anti-government speech". The prime minister denied these laws had anything to do with censoring free speech when questioned about them during a joint press conference with US President Donald Trump. 'We're not censoring anyone," said Starmer. 'We've got some measures which are there to protect children, in particular, from sites like suicide sites.' He added: 'I personally feel very strongly that we should protect our young teenagers, and that's what it usually is, from things like suicide sites. I don't see that as a free speech issue, I see that as child protection.' Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms such as social media sites and search engines must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide. This includes introducing age verification for websites and ensuring algorithms do not work to harm children by pushing such content towards them when online, for example. Failing to comply with the new rules could incur fines of up to £18 million or 10% of a firm's global turnover, whichever is greater. On Tuesday a petition on the government's website to repeal the act stood close to 400,000 signatories and as such will be scheduled for debate by MPs.
