In the rapidly evolving world of digital communication, the introduction of the UK's Online Safety Act marks a significant shift in how social media companies manage content. This legislation aims to protect minors from harmful online content, such as pornography and posts promoting violence or self-harm. The consequences of non-compliance can be severe, with potential fines reaching as high as £18 million or 10% of global revenue for major platforms. Given the extensive reach of social media and its influence on public discourse, the Act raises critical questions about censorship and free expression, particularly during times of conflict, such as the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

When the Online Safety Act came into effect, many tech giants began implementing stringent content controls. BBC Verify's analysis revealed that legitimate posts about wars, such as those on X (formerly Twitter) and Reddit, were restricted if the user did not complete age verification checks. For instance, a post depicting a man in Gaza searching for his family amid destruction was labeled sensitive, as was footage of a drone destroyed in Ukraine. These examples highlight how, in an effort to comply with regulations, tech companies are inadvertently stifling vital discussions that inform and engage the public. This raises a pressing concern: can the drive to protect vulnerable groups come at the cost of suppressing important conversations? While the intention of the law is commendable, it poses a paradox where safeguarding one group may lead to the marginalization of another.