Sweeping new rules designed to deal with the “total Wild West” young people were experiencing online have now been in place across the UK for a month.
Ofcom’s Children’s Codes require pornography and other harmful content to be kept away from young people, either through age verification or algorithm changes.
More than half a million people have signed a petition calling for the Online Safety Act to be repealed, while ministers insist the legislation’s been a success.
They told us about frequently stumbling across violence, pornography and harmful mental health content in their social media feeds.
One 17-year-old described seeing more harmful and inappropriate content online “than I can count”. Even a 12-year-old described being shown language that “can be quite explicit for children my age”.
So, one month later, we spoke to some of the teenagers again. The difference in what they reported was remarkable.
Ryan, 17, told us previously that the internet was a “very, very malicious” place and described frequently seeing inappropriate content.
Just one month on, he says his algorithm now seems “tamed” – although he’d still describe the internet as malicious.
“[My] algorithms have been quite tame in comparison to what they were. I haven’t seen any sort of advertisements and stuff that can be alluding towards anything inappropriate,” he said.
Liam, 16, also said Instagram felt “tamed” compared to what it was like before.
He was previously being served a lot of eating disorder content but “in the time that the rules have been in place I don’t actually think I’ve seen any”.
“I used to see them every few scrolls so it’s very much gone down.”
Image: Young people gathered at the Warrington Youth Zone to talk to Sky News about online safety
Seventeen-year-old Indie said she now feels like she “can actually scroll on the internet worry-free of what’s going to pop up”. Abbey, 17, also said she feels less worried about scrolling now.
“I feel really good about [the new rules] because now I don’t have to worry about seeing things I don’t want to see,” she said.
Ryan, 15, previously told us he was frequently being shown violent content that would ruin his day. Now, “when I’m scrolling TikTok, I’m free from violence”, he said.
“It feels better, to be honest. I feel more clean, in a sort of way, because like, I’ve not seen it.”
Of the six teenagers we re-interviewed, only one – 15-year-old Oliver – said he hadn’t really noticed a change.
However, harmful content is still sometimes being shown to teens, we soon found out.
Image: Sky News experimented with fake teen accounts to see whether harmful content was still available
One month later, we created TikTok and Instagram accounts belonging to a 15-year-old and searched for terms relating to suicide and self-harm.
On Instagram, all three search terms took us to a mental health support page, signposting to helplines and advice.
On TikTok, however, that wasn’t the case.
One search term took us to a mental health support page, similar to Instagram’s.
Another search term showed the message “no results”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:18
Teens targeted with ‘suicide content’
But a third, relating to a specific type of self-harm, brought up numerous posts that should no longer be shown to young people under Ofcom’s guidance.
Some posts used euphemisms, others were more explicit about their content. None of it should be available to children in the UK now.
In response to our experiment, a TikTok spokesperson said:
“TikTok has designed 70+ features and settings that support the safety and well-being of teens and families on our app, and we partner with organisations such as Samaritans and the International Association for Suicide Prevention to bring well-being resources directly to our community.
“We continually enforce comprehensive Community Guidelines, with over 99% of violative content proactively removed by TikTok.
“This single account does not reflect the real experience of a teen on our platform.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:43
‘Children as young as six’ finding porn
Pornography views plummet…
But a lot of the controversy about these rules hasn’t come from children. Adults use the internet too and the new age verification rules seem to have impacted the way they surf the web.
Not everyone’s happy about it.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Despite the government responding to that petition to say it had “no plans” to repeal the act, the number of signatories has now passed half a million.
“We all want children to be safe online, but I don’t think those benefits outweigh the significant costs, not just to millions of low-abiding children and adults in the UK, but also the effect this is having elsewhere around the world,” said Matthew Feeney, advocacy manager at Big Brother Watch.
He brought up privacy concerns before the rules were introduced and says he’s still concerned, having seen them in action.
“It’s doing the UK no favours internationally,” he said. “No other liberal democracy has taken steps like this in this kind of way.
“There are ways to talk about child safety online without embracing this approach to the internet, which treats everyone as a child by default.”
In Westminster, the rules proved controversial too; when Reform leader Nigel Farage said his party would repeal the act if elected, Technology Secretary Peter Kyle responded on Sky News by saying Mr Farage was “on the side of predators”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:58
Minister’s Farage comments ‘no slip of the tongue’
“Anybody who thinks this legislation is going to be perfect in this moment must think again,” said Baroness Beeban Kidron, founder of 5Rights and a longtime supporter of the new legislation.
“It should not be a conversation about attackers, detractors, defenders. What we have to do is go again, and again, and again until we get the balance right.”
One of the most obvious ways general internet use has changed since the rules came in is through pornography.
According to a recent report by the Children’s Commissioner, the world’s four largest pornography sites received nearly 11 billion visitors each month in 2020; more than the number of visitors to Amazon, LinkedIn, Netflix, Zoom and eBay combined.
But within a day of the new regulations, the number of UK visitors to pornography sites plummeted – and has stayed low.
Data given to Sky News by Similarweb showed that between 19 July and 15 August, there was a 45% drop in the number of UK users to Pornhub, the country’s most popular pornography site.
Across the top 100 sites, there was a 33% drop.
Even pornography-based forums took a hit – Subreddits linked to bondage, discipline, sadism, and masochism (BDSM), for example, are experiencing 12% fewer visits from the UK than before the rules were introduced.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean the UK has lost its appetite for adult content.
But VPN use seems to be up
At the same time as UK porn visits were plummeting, the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) was rocketing, as people bypassed new age verification pages altogether.
VPNs mask their users’ location and may mean that plenty of people were accessing porn… they just didn’t look like they were in the UK.
The number of people searching for VPNs on Google spiked dramatically in the days after the rules were introduced.
Although the interest has waned, it is still higher than pre-regulation levels.
Five out of Apple’s top 10 downloaded apps were VPNs just one day after the rules started being enforced.
Baroness Beeban doesn’t believe it is children using VPNs to bypass age verification.
“I’ve actually found it extraordinary that the assumption is that all of the VPN surge is children. Think about it carefully.
“A lot of it will be adults who are actually trying to hide their own behaviour now that you actually have to be a bit more transparent.”
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK
Labour has sunk to its lowest approval rating for this parliament, according to a fresh YouGov poll for Sky News.
Sir Keir Starmer’s party is currently on 20% of the vote – the lowest level since last year’s general election and just three points ahead of the Conservatives. on 17% of the vote.
Asked about the polling, Nick Thomas-Symonds, the EU relations minister, told Sky News’ Anna Jones that the government had been forced to take “very difficult decisions to stabilise the public finances early in this parliament”.
He said Labour had acted in the “national interest” by securing a reset deal with the EU which lowers costs for supermarkets and shoppers, and which the government hopes to extend.
“That is acting in the national interest, that is not about particular opinion polls you are showing me today,” he said.
“That is about work the prime minister asked me to do and to prepare for before this government came into office and that is what this government does. It does the hard yards of delivery for the British people.”
He added: “What Nigel Farage does is to stoke problems and offer empty promises for their solution.”
Mr Thomas-Symonds, who represents Torfaen, took the fight to Mr Farage in a speech today, where he accused the Reform UK leader of wanting to “reverse our progress” and of “dividing communities and stoking anger”.
The government wants to get a permanent deal with the EU on food and drink agreed in the next 18 months.
The current temporary agreement, which was put in place in June, stopped checks on some fruit and vegetables imported from the EU, which meant no border checks or fees would be paid, and is due to expire in January 2027.
Mr Farage has previously called for the agreement between the UK and EU to be torn up, saying in May that the SPS [sanitary and phytosanitary] provisions agreed that month would push the UK “back into the orbit of Brussels, giving away vast amounts of our sovereignty for very little in return”.
In his speech, Mr Thomas-Symonds said the Tories and Reform UK only offer “easy answers and snake oil” over the UK’s relationship with the EU.
“Some will hysterically cry even treason,” he said. “Some will say we’re surrendering sovereignty or freedoms, but that is nonsense.
“We are determined to plug the gaps, to rebuild Britain, protect our borders, bring down bills in every part of the country and secure good jobs, a new relationship of mutual benefit, one that brings freedom back to our businesses and exercises our sovereignty.
“And it needs pragmatism. When you’re tough, decisive and collaborative. That cannot rest on easy answers and snake oil. The Tories [are] completely 2D, stuck with a ghost of Brexit past. And then Nigel Farage, who has pledged to reverse our progress.”
A Reform UK spokesperson said: “No one has done more damage to British businesses than this Labour government.
“With 157,000 fewer people on payroll since Labour took office, their jobs tax is stifling success and hitting small and medium-sized businesses across the country.
“Cosying up to the EU and leaving us entangled in reams of retained EU law which Kemi Badenoch failed to scrap will not resuscitate Britain’s struggling economy.”
More than six million new cancer cases could be diagnosed in England between now and 2040, according to leading charities.
This would equate to a diagnosis every two minutes, which is up from one every four minutes in the 1970s.
A coalition of more than 60 cancercharities, known as One Cancer Voice, is warning the government must take urgent steps to tackle cancer care in England – including faster diagnosis targets and better prevention policies.
The analysis carried out by the charities is based largely on pre-pandemic data and suggests cases will increase by 14.2% over the next 15 years, with diagnoses of some of the most common cancers reaching all-time highs.
This includes over a million new prostate cancer diagnoses, and more than 900,000 for breast cancer by 2040.
The research also finds regional variations:
• South East – over a million diagnoses
• North East – 865,000
• East of England and the South West – 722,000
• London – 714,000
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:56
Man loses voice box after late cancer diagnosis
Six key demands
These figures starkly set out the need for change, and the timing of their release is significant.
Later this autumn, the government is expected to publish its long-awaited National Cancer Plan.
These leading charities have combined forces to put pressure on ministers ahead of its publication, demanding six measures which they say must be implemented if cancer outcomes are to improve:
• A pledge to meet all cancer waiting times by the end of parliament in 2029
• A new earlier diagnosis target, with improved screening programmes
• The introduction of strong cancer prevention policies
• Addressing inequalities in patient care
• Improving access to clinical trials for cancer patients
• Better support for people to live well with and beyond cancer
‘A defining moment’
The pandemic had a huge impact on cancer care in the country, and an ageing population adds further pressures.
But the most recently available data, which is around a decade old, suggests the NHS is still lagging behind many comparable countries.
The chief executive of Cancer Research UK, Michelle Mitchell, described the national plan as a “defining moment”.
“If the UK government delivers an ambitious fully funded strategy, we could save more lives and transform cancer outcomes, propelling England from world lagging to among world leading when it comes to tackling this disease,” she said.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “This government is prioritising cancer care as we turn around more than a decade of neglect of our NHS.
“We’re already making an impact, with 95,000 more people having cancer diagnosed or ruled out within 28 days between July 2024 and May 2025, compared to the same period the previous year.
“This will soon be supported by our new National Cancer Plan, setting out how cancer care will improve over the coming years.
“We’re also making it easier for people to get tests, checks, and scans with DIY screening kits for cervical cancer, new radiotherapy machines in every region, and by creating the first smoke-free generation.”
Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.
The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.
In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.
Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.
What is the ECHR?
On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.
It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.
The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.
The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.
Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.
Image: Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.
There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).
The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.
ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.
Image: The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
How is it actually used?
The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.
The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.
The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.
An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.
All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.
The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.
Image: Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
How could the UK leave?
A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.
At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.
The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.
Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?
Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.
It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.
The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.
Image: Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
How would the UK’s human rights protections change?
Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.
For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.
Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.
Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.
The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.
Image: Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.
Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.
He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.