IP Blocking the UK Is Not Enough to Comply with the Online Safety Act
75 comments
·November 8, 2025mzajc
> The primary one is that the notion of a “UK based IP” is nonsense. Geolocation databases work by figuring out where people log in from and only after doing a lot of pattern recognition do those addresses get associated with that location.
I support the cause, but I don't think that's true. RIPE, the RIR responsible for UK, makes available a list of allocations per country. For UK:
https://stat.ripe.net/data/country-resource-list/data.json?resource=gb
flumpcakes
Yeah, geo-IP is not perfect, but it's not built on pure guessing like the author implies.
philipwhiuk
Yeh it's the sub-country data that's often bad, not the national stuff.
beejiu
I don't really understand the concern. The UK objects to suicide forums and American operators of suicide forums are protected by the First Amendment of extradition to the UK. So if you want to operate a suicide forum from America, just don't travel to the UK and you're okay.
sys_64738
> just don't travel to the UK and you're okay.
Pretty much avoid entering Britain or its dependencies or you'll be nabbed on a Commonwealth Warrant and extradited to England.
anonymousDan
Yes the US does this shit all the time. Suck it up.
beejiu
Seems reasonable. If I committed what is considered a crime on American soil, I wouldn't expect to be able to enter the US without arrest.
consp
Many countries have extradition treaties with both the UK and the US. Be careful to check those as well.
rootusrootus
Don't most crimes still require mens rea? Or is that only a US thing?
qball
Extraordinary rendition is still a thing, though; the US has done this several times.
Now, granted, the US is a freer country than the UK is so that doesn't usually matter all that much, but all the US would need to do to nullify its 1A would be to simply permit the UK to enforce its claims of extraterritoriality in US-friendly airspace.
What speech they might be permitted to prosecute would naturally change based on administration.
mcny
First of all, I anal and also this is more of a question than a statement but
a us person could travel to a country x and that x could send this us person to a UK prison? I don't know if doing so would be legal but when the rubber hits the road, each country x is technically sovereign and does not have to honor the first amendment of the US constitution.
So even if it might be frowned upon to extradite foreign (US) nationals in country X (such as Canada or India) to the UK, they could do it anyway to send a message?
beejiu
Your First Amendment rights only apply within the United States, this should be obvious. Nonetheless, extradition treaties generally require that a crime be considered a crime within both jurisdictions.
holowoodman
Most of Europe does have similar thought-crime and censorship laws as the UK now have. Also, the crime of "hindering an official investigation" could be interpreted into this, and this exists practically anywhere.
The only further question would be if the country is friendly enough with the UK to extradite.
rpdillon
I traveled to a lot of countries during my time in the military. I was also a legal officer that had to deal with legal issues in foreign countries.
Traveling is no joke. Americans often act like the world is their playground, but you are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction you're standing in. Traveller beware.
zdragnar
Extradition of a foreign citizen to a third country is not a simple matter, diplomatically speaking. The US might not have the hegemony it enjoyed 20-30 years ago, but it certainly has plenty of sway.
When it's a matter of drug charges or other obviously criminal activity, the US embassy and diplomats don't normally raise a fuss, but for something like this where the person made first amendment protected speech in the US? That'd definitely raise all kinds of hell.
qball
Why would it?
Plenty of US citizens would actively cheer the notion of having a foreign government arrest their political opponents as an end-run around the fact they're not allowed to do it at home.
After all, 1A/"freeze peach" laws should only protect you from your government, right?
x3n0ph3n3
It's not clear to me that the UK even has a mechanism to discover the operators of such sites. If I found myself in such a position, I imagine I wouldn't even bother trying to block UK IPs and let them sort out their own internet blocking.
throw7
First they came for the suicide forums...
flumpcakes
> suicide forums are protected by the First Amendment
Are they? Is all speech protected? If so, how do you prosecute people who leak secrets?
alexford1987
> Are they?
Yes
> Is all speech protected?
No
> how do you prosecute people who leak secrets?
See above
themafia
> They’re definitely not treating it like a public safety matter, where they know how to reach us and know that I generally respond within the hour.
It's been exceedingly obvious but it's nice to know that Ofcom never thought that anyone would bother to fight back. This is clearly not about public safety but about controlling American corporations.
Parliamentary forces seem to be directly suborning this corruption.
toyg
> This is clearly [...] about controlling American corporations
Not exactly. On the surface, it's about kowtowing to pearl-clutching UK NGOs that are empowered by Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch's hysterical tabloids; and underneath, the real agenda is about restricting the influence of unsanctioned sites that could influence UK discourse - influence that established UK press barons (like the Murdochs, Lebedev, etc) want to keep very much to themselves.
themafia
> could influence UK discourse
Is 4chan attempting to unfairly or unduly influence UK "discourse?" Or are they just _contributing_ to it as members of the public on an anonymous forum?
> Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch's hysterical tabloids
Which actually are an attempt to influence UK discourse. The framing errors are interesting.
kingsleyopara
The most frustrating part here is that this car crash of a policy had cross party support so there wasn’t even a way for UK people like me to vote against it.
spacebanana7
Even in Reform, I get the sense that Zia Yusuf was the only person campaigning seriously against it. Going on a one man crusade to force Farage to criticise it and put fully repealing the act on their manifesto.
youngNed
It was a Reform politician who championed it in: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0004...
null
t0lo
Interesting isn't it...
ultra_nick
Why are europeans so prone to authoritarianism?
I've heard they're arresting 12,000/year for "hate speech" now. Every month they come out with some new way to oppress their populations. Even China sounds like it has more freedom now.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2025/09/09/people-a...
mtoner23
Idk man look around america rn. People in my neighborhood are getting dragged into unmarked vans off the street
anigbrowl
When a country transitions from manufacturing to services, it ends up trying to export its legal system.
jacquesm
The USA has been exporting its legal system for decades. And the UK still makes plenty of stuff. I really don't think this is valid. There is a close analogy though, companies that end up losing in the marketplace tend to become legally active to try to extract a tax from those that did better.
anigbrowl
I fully agree that the US does the same thing, as do other countries- that's why I framed it as a general observation. I agree about the similar corporate behavior. I don't think it's a healthy development, but it's not easy to develop a general model of how this kind of thing plays out.
pessimizer
One of the big things I've been wondering about the decision of the Anglosphere to all switch to a service economy: why would you do that when your population is both smaller and dumber than the populations of other countries?
The UK (nor the US) has no advantage in providing services, all it can do is demand that other people be prevented from providing them.
jacquesm
> why would you do that when your population is both smaller and dumber than the populations of other countries?
Given that, shouldn't you be able to answer the question?
crtasm
>This is demonstrably false.
By testing from.. a single VPN IP?
And as noted in other comments here he doesn't seem to understand how geo ip databases are maintained. I sure won't be asking this guy to represent me anytime soon.
vitus
The combative stance that he's taking really doesn't do him any favors in resolving the issue.
Lawyer: "I've confirmed that at least one UK IP address is blocked."
Regulators: "We've confirmed that at least one UK IP address is not blocked."
In what world is the correct response "Dear regulators, you're incompetent. Pound sand." instead of "Can you share the IP address you used so my client can address this in their geoblock?"
holowoodman
> In what world is the correct response "Dear regulators, you're incompetent. Pound sand." instead of "Can you share the IP address you used so my client can address this in their geoblock?"
That would imply that the client actually would like to be contacted every time Ofcom found a leak in the geoblock. Not a good idea imho.
crtasm
That does seem implied, e.g.
>They’re definitely not treating it like a public safety matter, where they know how to reach us and know that I generally respond within the hour.
phendrenad2
The absolute confidence Ofcom has in its ability to impose laws on US citizens is kind of strange. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Maybe in 2028 we get a president who is willing to let US citizens be extradited based on laws like this.
olirex99
When content involves self-harm or illegal activity, the discussion isn’t just about geolocation, it’s about platform responsibility, user safety, and effective remediation. Striking the balance between free expression and preventing real harm is why platforms use content policy teams, abuse reporting, and multidisciplinary responses (moderation + outreach + law enforcement where warranted).
8note
the bravado makes for some great irony. worrying and feeling ultra-superior about the UK government, while letting the tiktok ban and forced sale go through unchallenged.
altogether, if you dont care about following this UK law, whats the need to carr what the UK government does? just dont go there or do business with people who care about the UK government. same as US sanctions and secondary sanctions. the UK at least is a small market
jsheard
> worrying and feeling ultra-superior about the UK government, while letting the tiktok ban and forced sale go through unchallenged.
And more specifically, US states passing or in the process of passing laws which aren't all that different to the UKs OSA. Mississippi's version is in some ways even more difficult to enforce, Bluesky notably went along with the OSA compliance but chose to geoblock Mississippi rather than attempt to enforce its new age assurance law.
null
You shouldn't even be expected to geoblock. If I'm operating a Web site in country A, I should not have to care about country B's laws unless I am taking specific action intended to attract users in country B in particular. That's doesn't mean just to target the whole world, either. If you don't want your citizens to access something in another country, take it up with your citizens.
It was obvious from the minute that idiots started creating IP location databases in the first place that people would demand that they be used like that... and those demands seem to be winning out.