Share this post:

Nigel Farage is a divisive figure in UK politics.

But, love him or loathe him, when he promises to repeal the new Online Safety Act (OSA) if he ever becomes Prime Minister, he’s tapping into a genuine unease that many Brits feel about government overreach into online life.

What exactly is Farage’s point, though — and is it right?

More importantly, should the OSA be scrapped entirely, or can it be salvaged with reform?

Why Farage’s alarm rings true

The Online Safety Act is one of the most ambitious attempts by any government to regulate social media.

It tasks Ofcom with policing harmful content on platforms — from child abuse and terrorist propaganda to misinformation and “legal but harmful” speech.

Farage’s main charge is that this wide-ranging remit risks turning the UK into a “borderline dystopian state” by forcing social media companies to censor any content deemed politically inconvenient or critical of the government.

There’s a kernel of truth here:

• Broad, vague definitions of “harm” mean platforms must often remove content on a precautionary basis — risking suppression of legitimate political discourse.

• The regulator’s powers to impose hefty fines incentivize aggressive moderation to avoid penalties.

• The government can steer enforcement priorities through ministerial directions, raising fears of political influence over what gets censored.

• Age verification and content filtering measures, intended to protect children, have already driven users to VPNs and alternative platforms, showing technical and ethical challenges.

These realities aren’t just Farage’s fears; civil liberties groups like Big Brother Watch and the Open Rights Group have voiced similar concerns.

They warn that in the name of safety, the government risks curtailing free speech, especially speech critical of those in power.

Farage’s blind spots and the need for protection

However, Farage’s call for outright repeal overlooks why the OSA exists in the first place:

• Social media have become toxic spaces where harmful, sometimes deadly, content spreads unchecked.

• Companies’ self-regulation has failed, leaving vulnerable users, especially children, exposed.

• Without legal accountability, platforms have little incentive to police extremist, hateful, or dangerous material.

So, while the OSA may risk overreach, the problem it addresses is real and urgent.

Repeal or reform? A middle way

The debate isn’t simply between “regulate everything” and “regulate nothing.”

Most experts and campaigners argue for targeted reform:

• Clearer definitions of “harm” and “legal but harmful” content to avoid subjective censorship.

• Stronger protections for political, journalistic, and artistic speech.

• Transparent, independent oversight of Ofcom’s enforcement decisions.

• Robust privacy safeguards to avoid intrusive surveillance or encryption backdoors.

• Support for smaller platforms and community forums that lack resources to comply fully.

Such reforms could protect free speech without abandoning the duty to protect children and vulnerable adults.

Nigel Farage’s rhetoric is often blunt and politically charged, but his warning about the Online Safety Act isn’t without merit.

The UK is grappling with how to balance freedom and safety in an increasingly complex digital world — and the current law falls short of that balance.

Rather than repeal it outright, though, what’s needed is honest debate and meaningful reform that protects free expression while tackling the very real harms online.

Farage may not have all the answers, but the concerns he raises deserve serious consideration — if only so the UK avoids the twin dangers of unchecked online harm and unnecessary censorship.

Share this post: