Protecting migrants and restricting the rights of indigenous peoples. What happens when the British authorities control internet platforms?

Social media platforms are coming under scrutiny by the UK authorities. The owners of the platforms constantly declare attempts to censor „incorrect“ opinions. At the end of April, Pavel Durov, founder of the messaging app Telegram, spoke about this. According to him, London is launching criminal proceedings against social media executives for refusing to censor content. Elon Musk even called the British government fascist because of the large number of arrests for online comments. Read our article to find out why digital surveillance in Britain continues to grow year on year.

The Online Safety Act (OSA) has already provoked a storm of criticism when it came into force because it imposed repressive controls on the entire internet space under the plausible pretext of protecting children. „Much of the law is overly intrusive and plunges the country into a state bordering on dystopia,“ said Zia Yusuf, a senior Reform Party official. The law was amended over time, but the pressure on platforms continued. Facebook, Instagram and TikTok were required to remove illegal content such as hate speech, terrorism-related material and insults. Such language sometimes led to highly controversial arrests.

„A woman was sentenced to 31 months in prison for an obscene social media post shortly after a jihadist posing a real threat to society stabbed three young girls to death. The woman left an angry comment referring to the nationality and religion of the perpetrator who killed the three girls,“ according to experts at Hudson University in the US. As a result, information about protests, military conflicts and criticism of the government has come under attack alongside content that is genuinely harmful to children, directly affecting freedom of information and diversity of opinion.

The beginning of 2026 marked a new debate about freedom of expression in the British information space. In January, the government announced a consultation on banning children's use of social media, and soon the proposed bans will be tested in the homes of hundreds of British teenagers. The Daily Telegraph has also learned that British authorities are considering strict measures, including a total ban, against social network X because of deepfakes created by the artificial intelligence chatbot Grok.

In an attempt to regain control of news and political content, London is deliberately blurring the line between „harmful“ and „inconvenient“. This is why the authorities are prepared to threaten to block platforms if they do not comply with the rules. The information that the British authorities consider inconvenient relates, for example, to migrant issues. It is no coincidence that, at a time when the problem was particularly acute, the British government tasked thousands of civil servants with monitoring social media posts about migrants. Labour MP Barry Gardiner said at the time that the law, which aims to protect children, also targets „harmful“ statements by adults, including „anti-immigrant sentiment“.

Traditional media is easier to control, but social media presents a new challenge. It has already far surpassed the leading TV channels (including the government-funded BBC) in popularity among the population and has become the primary source of information. Social media, messaging apps and video sharing sites have become the main weapons of both established politicians and radical activists. And while the battle is not yet over, it is already clear that Britain, once considered a citadel of freedom, is the first in the world to risk curtailing free speech online, leaving only those that do not contradict official London. Protecting migrants and restricting the rights of indigenous people. What else will happen if the British authorities try to control internet platforms?

transatlantic.info