New UK Internet Regulations Force Small Forums and Websites to Shut Down

The lemmy.zip forum has barred UK users, claiming the new rules lay the groundwork for a "UK-controlled great firewall," a reference to China’s stringent internet censorship system.

Numerous small-scale online forums and community websites have either restricted access for UK users or ceased operations entirely as stringent new internet ‘safety laws’ take effect. One forum likened the regulations to a British equivalent of China’s restrictive “great firewall.”

A variety of niche platforms, including a hamster enthusiasts’ forum, a community site for Charlbury residents in Oxfordshire, and a prominent cycling discussion board, have been impacted by the ‘illegal harms obligations’ being enforced by Ofcom – the UK’s regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting, internet, telecommunications and postal industries of the United Kingdom.

The lemmy.zip forum has barred UK users, claiming the new rules lay the groundwork for a “UK-controlled great firewall,” a reference to China’s stringent internet censorship system that blocks access to major Western platforms like Google and Wikipedia.

The UK’s expansive Online Safety Act introduced measures such as shielding children from harmful content, mandating age checks for adult sites, outlawing cyber-flashing and deepfakes, and tackling ‘dangerous misinformation’. Websites must conduct risk assessments on illegal content and adopt safety protocols, with Ofcom ready to impose fines up to £18 million or 10% of a site’s revenue for non-compliance.

Ofcom has emphasized that it will focus enforcement on larger platforms more likely to disseminate harmful content widely, with a spokesperson noting, “We’re not aiming to punish small, low-risk services acting in good faith, and will intervene only where it’s reasonable and justified.”

“The Home of All Things Hamstery”

Despite this, many smaller forums argue that compliance is too burdensome or financially risky. The Hamster Forum, self-described as “the home of all things hamstery,” shut down, with its operators stating they couldn’t meet the Act’s demands despite maintaining a safe environment. “There are no registered members to log in since the forum closed on 16th March 2025,” a message states on the forum’s front page.

Richard Fairhurst, who runs the “Charlbury in the Cotswolds” forum, highlighted the challenges for small platforms, from administrative hurdles to potential liability. Having managed the site since 2001, he told The Telegraph that the regulations could drive users from local, UK-based forums to American tech giants.

Bike Radar, a cycling forum tied to a magazine, closed this week citing “rising operational costs,” though it didn’t explicitly reference the Act. Similarly, the Green Living Forum, active since the early 2000s with over 470,000 posts, shut down, with its administrator unwilling to risk fines.

The host of lemmy.zip, blocking UK IP addresses, warned that the laws enable the government to arbitrarily censor or penalize sites under vague definitions of “harmful” content. The UK-based admin, speaking anonymously, said the personal risk of an £18 million fine forced his hand.

Ofcom’s Stance and Critics’ Response

Ofcom maintains that compliance costs for small sites should be minimal, ranging from negligible to a few thousand pounds. However, the Open Rights Group (ORG) argues that Ofcom should spare smaller platforms from enforcement. ORG’s James Baker warned that the Act’s demands could stifle small sites, boosting giants like Facebook and X, which have scaled back content moderation.

There is a simple solution,” Baker said. “The Secretary of State can exempt small, safe websites from onerous Online Safety duties, and protect plurality online.”

Share this article