VPN use surges in UK as new online safety rules kick in
42 comments
·July 28, 2025zaptheimpaler
Basically every new law, piece of news or media I see coming from the UK paints a picture of a beat-down, cynical & scared society that's complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government. Like maybe Adolescence or basically any mention of the NHS. The crimes they cite like child grooming or terrorism/hate being incited sound pretty terrible too, but I wonder why the UK specifically is taking action - is the issue bigger there, or are they just more aware of and willing to act on it.
kevinventullo
Neither, they’re just the most convenient excuses for instituting draconian laws.
happymellon
Because the media always paints other countries in certain lights, as it helps them build a narrative for their own governments?
> complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government
I disagree with this sentiment, however it does show how bad "democracy" can be when voting for a complete government change results in absolutely no change whatsoever.
sefrost
It is only a matter of time before they attempt to regulate VPN usage. Here is an article written by a British MP hinting at that:
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/columnists/onli...
scott_w
It definitely seems like she’s conflating two issues: access to pornography and child grooming. I don’t see why she thinks regulating VPNs would reduce the latter.
johnisgood
It does not. As I have said before, pedophilia is rampant on Roblox and Discord. Go monitor those platforms, and hold these platforms responsible, not VPNs. Regulating VPNs will not reduce child grooming, and I am sure they are not stupid enough to actually think it does.
pydry
She doesnt, she just wants to put in Putin-like levels of control and surveillance for the same reasons Putin does.
userbinator
Jinping is probably a better comparison.
cakealert
What message does it send when your government tries to impose costs on your preferred behavior while at the same time being unable to do it when you download a single app?
The words that come to mind are malicious and incompetent. The only 'achievement' is to increase contempt towards the government. And the times aren't exactly stable to begin with.
gg82
The safety rules are also being used to block content about protests in the UK. How convenient for them.
https://freespeechunion.org/protest-footage-blocked-as-onlin...
alwa
> “West Yorkshire Police denied any involvement in blocking the footage. X declined to comment, but its AI chatbot, Grok, indicated the clip had been restricted under the Online Safety Act due to violent content.”
I’m not involved with X or with its chatbot. Is its chatbot ordinarily an authoritative source for facts about assumptions like this one, that the law “was used to take down” politically sensitive video?
It’s a bad look either way, but I feel like there are important differences between the law leading to overly conservative automated filtering, vs political actors using it deliberately in specific cases. Bad symptom either way, but different medicines, right?
portaouflop
Of course LLMs are a rubbish source for facts, one should always verify. Not possible in this case so I would assume it just made it up
tapoxi
I really don't understand why it wasn't just a requirement for Apple and Google to include a client side filter. Parent sets up the phone and it's enabled by default. Much simpler option for everyone involved.
john01dav
It's because this law isn't about protecting children, but about control of the Internet. They want online activity tied to real identity as a power grab.
airhangerf15
Yea, it's all about a permanent Digital ID and the end of any independent forums. It's the first essential steps before you get to great firewalls and social credit scores.
Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US, so even a nation with better speech and gun laws is still not immune from the slow descent into technocracy.
userbinator
One possibly significant difference is that the cultural attitudes in the US tend to lean more rebellious and distrustful of the government, and "it's legal if you don't get caught" is a somewhat popular sentiment.
ls612
At least in the US the Supreme Court ruled that these sorts of laws are only kosher because they target porn, which is afforded a lower degree of legal protection (albeit not no protection at all). Trying to restrict access to protected political speech or the like the way the UK and Australia did would likely be a very different court case.
ethan_smith
Classic Streisand effect - attempts to restrict content access inevitably lead to widespread adoption of circumvention technologies.
itake
seems to be working in China. While many Chinese use VPN software, many don't bother with the friction and are fine just using rednote and friends.
winrid
VPNs barely work in China IME. NordVPN didn't work, for example, and my self hosted VPN would often get disconnected.
bapak
Leaving the complexity of attempting to circumvent the great firewall aside, VPN isn't free. Not many are willing to drop £60+/year just to avoid identifying yourself on PH. Easier to find a website that doesn't enforce it.
dns_snek
> VPN isn't free. Not many are willing to drop £60+/year
Yes it is, well, the shady ones that make you part of a botnet are. Those are the ones people are going to predominantly use.
lesser-shadow
"Seems to be working in China." Yeah, let's follow the example of the authoritarian countries just to prove how liberal "democracies" have nothing to do with freedom.
syockit
The parent comment is not about following examples, but rather that the impact Streisand effect is going to be very limited, and the common folk will not bother to circumvent.
elitistphoenix
Headline should be edited to put safety in quotes
kelseydh
Australia is set to adopt these rules in December, it's going to be another boom for VPN providers.
userbinator
This was an entirely predictable outcome.
arrowsmith
As is the next step: a slow but steady expansion of what's considered "unsafe" or "harmful" used to justify ever-increasing restrictions and censorship.
lisbbb
As a student of 1930s and 1940s history, I can say for sure that the most terrifying aspect of what took place wasn't the "Gestapo" and all the open terror, it was the propaganda that fooled so many people and the censorship that kept the lies alive. Humanity still has not fully come to terms with the layers upon layers of lies that took place before and during WWII.
wkat4242
And VPNs will probably end up in that category too :(
pixxel
[dead]
fakespaghetti
[flagged]
owisd
[flagged]
_trampeltier
I should not let your 8 years watch tv alone, nor should you let 8 years old alone in the internet.
neoglow
Don't underestimate the will of young children to do what is 'forbidden'. Especially when in puberty, they will find ways.
They are humans as well and can therefore think ;)
lisbbb
I really think the whole human race's ability to exchange information freely is bigger than "porn addiction" bs. We do this over and over and it always ends the same stupid way--millions upon millions of deaths that were avoidable.
https://archive.is/GWdx5