Internet News

NextDNS is a DNS service that is looking to work around ID/age  verification by diverting DNS requests to appear as if from another country

where iD/age verification is not required.

Most internet page reads consist of two steps, first to use the DNS server to work out eg that melonfarmers.co.uk/ is to be found at say IP address 214.16.66.216. The second stage is to extarct the page data from 214.16.66.216.

Now a lot of internet censorship and blocking is implemented at blocking and diverting the first step of the DNS look up, eg if an ISP wanted to block melonfarmers.co.uk it would return a false page of say 199.109.188.205 which is a page containing a blocked message or more likely a message saying that the site is unavailable.

It is the idea of NextDNS that most websites will do their location checking on the DNS look up rather than the page data request. And so if the DNS server would suggest that the DNS lookup were to be spoofed to appear too be from a less censorial country then perhaps the website could be fooled into not requiring ID verification, and that subsequent data requests would not be checked for location. This would be cheaper and easier then encrypting and rerouting page data requests as done by a VPN.

Anyone using the free or paid version of NextDNS can already turn this redirection feature on. To do so, users need to log into their account at my.nextdns.io, navigate to the Settings tab, scroll down, and toggle the Bypass Age Verification option. The company notes that by enabling it, users confirm they are of legal age to access restricted content.

The results so far are mixed. The feature remains in beta and does not work reliably across all platforms. Services like Reddit and X are still blocking some users, even with the setting active.

Attempts to view age-restricted YouTube videos have also failed, likely because YouTube requires account sign-ins and has started experimenting with AI-driven age estimation in the US.

Presumably these particular services do check the request location for each page data request. Hopefully the idea works with porn website that are happy to be access ed via spoofed location services

It seems that Ofcom has reached an initial decision to fine the US forum and image sharing website £20,000 + a recurring daily fine for not complying with the UK's unilateral censorship laws.

It seems that Ofcom is attempting to fine the US based website, with no connection whatsoever to the UK beyond that it has readers there, for not submitting to Ofcom's onerous and burdonsome red tape requirements.

4chan has responded in a letter from its lawyers, Byrne and Storm:

4chan is incorporated in Delaware, has no assets or operations in the UK, and that any attempt to impose or enforce penalties will be resisted in U.S. federal court.

American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an email. Under settled principles of U.S. law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes. If necessary, we will seek appropriate relief in U.S. federal court to confirm these principles. United States federal authorities have been briefed on this matter.

The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer was reportedly warned by the White House to cease targeting American firms with UK censorship code.

Despite these warnings, Ofcom continues its illegal campaign of harassment against American technology firms. A political solution to this matter is urgently required and must come from the highest levels of American government. We call on the Trump Administration to invoke all diplomatic and legal levers available to protect American companies from extraterritorial censorship mandates.

Surely Ofcom's arrogant censorship overreach will surely unravel if 4chan win their case in the US courts. If UK censorship law ends up being restricted to companies with UK connections, then the red tape nightmare will be a massive competitive disadvantage to UK based firms forced to submit to the UK censorship nightmare.

 

Update: It seems Ofcom have announced intentions to fine Gab and Kiwi Farms too

24th August 2025. See article from theverge.com

It has been reported that Ofcom are minded to try and fine 4chan for crimes against UK morality, but it has now been reported that Ofcom also have gab and Kiwi Farms in their sights.

All of the sites are a bit toxic to UK woke sensibilities and maybe are pretty unpopular with US bigwigs too. So presumably it is Ofcom's strategy to target the most toxic of US sites perhaps in order to win their case with a few US judges that may feel that these three websites deserve a little censorship.

Surely this first battle with US courts will set massive precedents, whichever way the decision goes, so maybe it is a pretty shrewd tactic by the internet censors at Ofcom.

Newspaper reports are suggesting that visits to the three main porn websites, all now inflicting ID verification, have significantly declined. The reports have only published a few partially defined example stats from an analytics company called SimilarWeb that don't readily stack up with themselves.

Papers report that

• the most popular, Pornhub dropped from an estimated 3.8m on July 24 to 2.0m for an average day in August, a drop of 47%. The Daily Mail adds that this figure has dropped to 1.8m by 18th August.
• the second most popular,  XVideos dropped by a similar 47%
• the third most popular, xHamster dropped from an estimated 2.0m on July 24 to 1.2m for an average day in August, a drop of 39%.

That would seem to be an average drop of about 45%.

There are now three straightforward options for porn viewers to continue their entertainment ie

• Stupidly submit to the ID verification
• Simply move to the many smaller websites that haven't implemented ID verification, see list of adult websites and their ID verification status
• Use a VPN to continue to browse any porn site of your choice.

So it would seem a fair assumption that no porn viewers need be deprived of their adult entertainment and that they would probably continue very much as before.

It would therefore be reasonable to assume that 55% of porn viewers have submitted to ID verification whilst 45% have moved to non restricted websites or are using a VPN.

Surely Ofcom, the Government and the parasitic age verification companies will all be well pleased that so many people have opted for ID verification.

The SimilarWeb analytics do indeed suggest that there has been a significant upsurge for the non ID verifying smaller websites. The Daily Mail comments that the traffic to non-complying PornHat.com increased by 130% in the same time frame. Pornhub commented:

As we've seen in many jurisdictions around the world, there is often a drop in traffic for compliant sites and an increase in traffic for non-compliant sites.

The traffic stats also suggest that there has been no significant decline in visitors to X and Reddit that have introduced ID verification, but only for their adult sections. The majority of their websites are unrestricted  to all for the large majority of their content.

The US State Department regularly asses human right in countries around the world. The latest report about the UK is particularly scathing. The US State Department Summary reads:

The human rights situation worsened in the United Kingdom during the year.

Significant human rights issues included credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression; and crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism.

The government sometimes took credible steps to identify and punish officials who committed human rights abuses, but prosecution and punishment for such abuses was inconsistent.

The US report is critical of the UK's censorship law, particularly The Online Safety Act:

There were laws in the United Kingdom (UK) that restricted freedom of speech in certain areas or allowed local councils to establish areas with restrictions on freedom of speech.

The law authorized UK authorities, including the Office of Communications (Ofcom), to monitor all forms of communication for speech they deemed illegal.

The Online Safety Act of 2023, which came into force in 2024, defined the category of online harm and expressly expanded Ofcom's authority to include American media and technology firms with a substantial number of British users, regardless of whether they had a corporate presence in the UK. Under the law, companies were required to engage in proactive illegal content risk assessment to mitigate the risk of users encountering speech deemed illegal by Ofcom. Experts warned that one effect of the bill could be government regulation to reduce or eliminate effective encryption (and therefore user privacy) on platforms.

On April 1, the Scottish government implemented the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act, including the introduction of offenses stirring up hatred through threatening or abusive behavior and the communication of threatening or abusive material.

Ofcom has originally opened an investigation into the US image hosting site in June 2025. It has now added and extra clause an investigation into Non-compliance with the safety duties about illegal content.

The investigation now reads:

We are initiating an investigation to determine whether the online discussion board 4chan has failed204or is currently failing204to comply with its obligations under the Online Safety Act 2023. Our investigation will focus on potential breaches in the following areas:

• Failure to respond to a statutory information request;

• Failure to complete and keep a record of a suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment; and

• Non-compliance with the safety duties about illegal content.

See article from en.wikipedia.org

4chan.org is an anonymous English-language imageboard website. The site hosts boards dedicated to a wide variety of topics, from video games and television to literature, cooking, weapons, music, history, technology, anime, physical fitness, politics, and sports, porn, among others. Registration is not available, except for staff, and users typically post anonymously. 4chan receives more than 22 million unique monthly visitors, of whom approximately half are from the United States.

The website achieved a little notoriety in Donald Trump's first presidential term. The wesbite was identified for providing a voice to 'alt-right' (right leaning) Trump supporters who were otherwise silenced by an alliance of liberal internet companies and mainstream media outlets..

Offsite Comment: Allowing British authorities to demand compliance from virtually any website.

11th June 2025. See article from reclaimthenet.org

Ofcom has set its sights on 4chan, a US-hosted imageboard owned by a Japanese national. The site operates under US law and has no physical infrastructure, employees, or legal registration in Britain. Nonetheless, UK regulators have declared it fair game.

Wherever in the world a service is based if it has 'links to the UK', it now has duties to protect UK users, Ofcom insists.

That phrase, links to the UK, is intentionally vague and extraordinarily expensive, allowing British authorities to demand compliance from virtually any website.

This kind of extraterritorial overreach marks a direct threat to the principle of national sovereignty in internet governance. The UK is attempting to dictate the rules of online speech to foreign companies, hosted on foreign servers, and serving users in other countries, all because someone in Britain might visit their site.

 

So what will Donald Trump's government make of Ofcom's attempt to censor US free speech? Surely it will be an important step for Ofcom, it could easily be blocked by the US, or simply ignored. Surely this will set a precedent for thousands of other foreign websites that could end up simply ignoring Britain's arrogant censorship law.

YouTube explains:

Back in February, we shared that we would soon introduce technology that would distinguish between younger viewers and adults to help provide the best and most age appropriate experiences and protections. Over the next few weeks, well begin to roll out machine learning to a small set of users in the US to estimate their age, so that teens are treated as teens and adults as adults. Well closely monitor this before we roll it out more widely. This technology will allow us to infer a users age and then use that signal, regardless of the birthday in the account, to deliver our age-appropriate product experiences and protections. Weve used this approach in other markets for some time, where it is working well. We are now bringing it to the US, and as we make progress well roll it out in other markets. We will closely monitor the user experience, and partner with Creators to ensure that the entire ecosystem benefits from this update.

Heres how it works

We will use AI to interpret a variety of signals that help us to determine whether a user is over or under 18. These signals include the types of videos a user is searching for, the categories of videos they have watched, or the longevity of the account.

When the system identifies a teen user, well automatically apply our age-appropriate experiences and protections, including:

• disabling personalized advertising

• turning on digital wellbeing tools

• adding safeguards to recommendations , including limiting repetitive views of some kinds of content

If the system incorrectly estimates a user to be under 18, they will have the option to verify that they are 18 or over, such as using a credit card or a government ID. We will only allow users who have been inferred or verified as over 18 to view age-restricted content that may be inappropriate for younger users.

Reporter Ash Parrish writes on the Verge website:

In the aftermath of itch.io pulling the sale of over 20,000 pages of adult content , the creators of that work are left feeling betrayed, exhausted, and fearful. The number of platforms that permit the sale of adult material is shrinking, and theres no guarantee the ones that remain will still permit it in the future.

To some creators, the most disheartening thing about itch.io removing thousands of pages of adult content is that its relatively unsurprising. The storefront is one of several in recent years that have embraced adult content only to shun it later when payment processors start asking questions. They've now found themselves booted from platform to platform, moving from Tumblr to Patreon to Gumroad, only to have the rug pulled out from under them each time.

But now, with their livelihoods at stake, many creators and their communities have begun to push back and search for new ways to thrive.

PixelJail, a creator who makes BDSM and other kink-related comics and illustration, has now opted to set up their own websites. But even without the burden of conforming to a platforms rules, having ones own website isnt a guarantee of absolute safety. In the UK, where PixelJail lives, the recently implemented Online Safety Act requires that online platforms have strong age checks in place to prevent children from accessing pornographic or harmful content.

When adult creators are regularly forced to find new places for their work, their business overall suffers. I can never get ahead, said PixelJail, a creator who makes BDSM and other kink-related comics and illustrations. I have to stop doing paid work to set up new accounts, backlog posting, pay for new subscriptions or services and other administrative tasks. I had to geoblock my websites in the UK, including my webstore, PixelJail said, meaning they no longer sell their work in their own country

See the full article from theverge.com

In an ideal world inhabited by politicians and children's campaigners, social media companies would work though all postings and treat each on its merits as to whether it requires age gating or not.

In the real world where commercial reality make this approach too expensive, coupled with a safety first approach mandated by ludicrously massive fines for transgression, the social media play safe and implement age gating around entire forums or even whole websites. For smaller companies it is often make sense just to self block the whole website to UK users.

Of course this reality leads to many more posts being blocked or age gated than maybe simple minded politicians envisaged. Now there seems to be a widespread disquiet about how the Online Safety Act is panning out.

Apart from just the 498,000 people that have signed the petition to repeal the Online Saety Act,  LibDems MP Victoria Collins and peer Lord Clement-Jones wrote a letter to the censorship minister Peter Kyle saying:

There remain significant concerns about how the legislation is currently being implemented, including concerns that:

• age-assurance measures may prove ineffective, as children and young people may use VPNs to sidestep the systems,

• political content is being age-gated on social media

• educational sites like Wikipedia will be designated as Category 1 services, requiring them to age verify moderators

• important forums dealing with LGBTQ+ rights, sexual health or other potentially sensitive topics have been age gated, and that

• age assurance systems may pose a data protection or privacy threat to users.

The implementation of the Act must be flexible, and respond to those emerging concerns. The intention behind this legislation was never to limit access to political or educational content, or to important support relied on by young people.

It was intended to keep children safe, and we must ensure that it is implemented in a way that does that as effectively as possible.

They then go on to talk about how parliament needs the chance to review it and make legislative changes where necessary.
 

Ofcom on over blocking

Online security expert Alec Muffet has tweeted that he has spotted a few hints that Ofcom has recognised that over blocking will be an inevitable characteristic of  Soi cla media's attempts to live whith the censorship rules:

Ofcom *may* be starting to understand that platforms are free to label entire forums as 18+ but that this conflicts with the OSA leading to overblocking pic.twitter.com/znbcfHhg4B

— Alec Muffett (@AlecMuffett) August 5, 2025

 

Of course MPs use VPNs themselves, its basic internet security

See article from reclaimthenet.org

Meanwhile it is interesting to see that when Peter Kyle has called for people not to use VPNs for the sake of the children, then it is intereting to see that MPs themselves are using VPNs as a matter of course. After all it would be stupid not to, for people in public life.

Speaking on BBC Breakfast, Peter Kyle warned:

For everybody out there whos thinking about using VPNs, let me say this to you directly: verifying your age keeps a child safe. Keeps children safe in our country, so lets just not try to find a way around.

Politico reported that official spending records show parliamentarians across party lines have been billing the public for commercial VPN services. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds charged taxpayers for a two-year NordVPN subscription in April 2024. Labour MP Sarah Champion, who in 2022 pressed the government to investigate whether teenage VPN use could undermine online safety rules, also has a subscription on record.

The government says it has no intention of outlawing VPNs but admits it is monitoring how young people use them. This comes after a sharp increase in downloads following the rollout of mandatory digital ID checks under the new censorship law, the Online Safety Act.

So I wonder how many porn using MPs prefer to dangerously hand over their ID data for age verification, and how many play it safe and use a VPN.

Young people should be able to access information, speak to each other and to the world, play games, and express themselves online without the government making decisions about what speech is permissible. But in one of the latest misguided attempts to protect children online, internet users of all ages in the UK are being forced to prove their age before they can access millions of websites under the countrys Online Safety Act (OSA).

The legislation attempts to make the UK the 'the safest place' in the world to be online by placing a duty of care on online platforms to protect their users from harmful content. It mandates that any site accessible in the UK--including social media , search engines , music sites , and adult content providers --enforce age checks to prevent children from seeing harmful content . This is defined in three categories, and failure to comply could result in fines of up to 10% of global revenue or courts blocking services:

• Primary priority content that is harmful to children:

  • Pornographic content.

  • Content which encourages, promotes or provides instructions for:

    • suicide;

    • self-harm; or

    • an eating disorder or behaviours associated with an eating disorder.

• Priority content that is harmful to children:

  • Content that is abusive on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability or gender reassignment;

  • Content that incites hatred against people on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability or gender reassignment;

  • Content that encourages, promotes or provides instructions for serious violence against a person;

  • Bullying content;

  • Content which depicts serious violence against or graphicly depicts serious injury to a person or animal (whether real or fictional);

  • Content that encourages, promotes or provides instructions for stunts and challenges that are highly likely to result in serious injury; and

  • Content that encourages the self-administration of harmful substances.

• Non-designated content that is harmful to children (NDC):

  • Content is NDC if it presents a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children in the UK, provided that the risk of harm does not flow from any of the following:

    • the contents potential financial impact;

    • the safety or quality of goods featured in the content; or

    • the way in which a service featured in the content may be performed.

Online service providers must make a judgement about whether the content they host is harmful to children, and if so, address the risk by implementing a number of measures, which includes, but is not limited to:

• Robust age checks: Services must use 'highly effective age assurance to protect children from this content. If services have minimum age requirements and are not using highly effective age assurance to prevent children under that age using the service, they should assume that younger children are on their service and take appropriate steps to protect them from harm.'

  To do this, all users on sites that host this content must verify their age, for example by uploading a form of ID like a passport, taking a face selfie or video to facilitate age assurance through third-party services, or giving permission for the age-check service to access information from your bank about whether you are over 18.

• Safer algorithms: Services 'will be expected to configure their algorithms to ensure children are not presented with the most harmful content and take appropriate action to protect them from other harmful content.'

• Effective moderation: All services 'must have content moderation systems in place to take swift action against content harmful to children when they become aware of it.'

Since these measures took effect in late July, social media platforms Reddit , Bluesky , Discord , and X all introduced age checks to block children from seeing harmful content on their sites. Porn websites like Pornhub and YouPorn implemented age assurance checks on their sites, now asking users to either upload government-issued ID, provide an email address for technology to analyze other online services where it has been used, or submit their information to a third-party vendor for age verification. Sites like Spotify are also requiring users to submit face scans to third-party digital identity company Yoti to access content labelled 18+. Ofcom, which oversees implementation of the OSA, went further by sending letters to try to enforce the UK legislation on U.S.-based companies such as the right-wing platform Gab .

The UK Must Do Better

The UK is not alone in pursuing such a misguided approach to protect children online: the U.S. Supreme Court recently paved the way for states to require websites to check the ages of users before allowing them access to graphic sexual materials; courts in France last week ruled that porn websites can check users ages; the European Commission is pushing forward with plans to test its age-verification app; and Australias ban on youth under the age of 16 accessing social media is likely to be implemented in December.

But the UKs scramble to find an effective age verification method shows us that there isn't one, and its high time for politicians to take that seriously. The Online Safety Act is a threat to the privacy of users, restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposes users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form of ID excluded from accessing the internet.

And, to top it all off, UK internet users are sending a very clear message that they do not want anything to do with this censorship regime. Just days after age checks came into effect, VPN apps became the most downloaded on Apple's App Store in the UK, and a petition calling for the repeal of the Online Safety Act recently hit more than 400,000 signatures.

The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users--including children--rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect.

Ofcom has launched censorship investigations into the compliance of four companies -- which collectively run 34 pornography sites -- on grounds of lack of ID/age verification being implemented. Ofcom writes:

We have opened formal investigations into whether the following providers have highly effective age checks in place across 34 websites: 8579 LLC, AVS Group Ltd, Kick Online Entertainment S.A. and Trendio Ltd.

These companies have been prioritised based on the risk of harm posed by the services they operate and their user numbers. Collectively, these websites have over 9 million unique monthly UK visitors.

These new cases add to Ofcom's 11 investigations already in progress into 4chan, an online suicide forum, seven file-sharing services, First Time Videos LLC and Itai Tech Ltd. We expect to make further enforcement announcements in the coming weeks and months.

We will now gather and analyse evidence to determine whether any contraventions have occurred. If our assessment indicates compliance failures, we will issue provisional notices of contravention to providers, who can then make representations on our findings, before we make our final decisions.

The 8579 LLC adult sites are:

• 4kporn.xxx
• crazyporn.xxx
• love4porn.com
• hoes.tube.

The websites are still available in the UK without ID/age verification

The AVS Group Ltd sites are:

• pornzog.com
• txxx.com, txxx.tube
• upornia.com
• hdzog.com, hdzog.tube
• thegay.com, thegay.tube
• ooxxx.com
• hotmovs.com
• hclips.com
• vjav.com
• pornl.com
• voyeurhit.com
• manysex.com
• tubepornclassic.com
• shemalez.com, shemalez.tube.

These sites now require ID/age verification in the UK but are available using a VPN.

The Kick Online Entertainment S.A site is

• motherless.com

The website is still available in the UK without ID/age verification

The Trendio Ltd sites are:

• theyarehuge.com
• tranny.one
• ah-me.com
• ashemale.one
• bdsm.one
• bemyhole.com
• gaygo.tv, gayxo.com
• shemale.pub,
• sunporno.com
• yesvids.com

These site now require ID/age verification in the UK via a hasslesome multi selfie approach from agerify. However the sites are still available using a VPN.

Social media companies are blocking wide-ranging content - including posts about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza - in an attempt to comply with the UK's new Online Safety Act, BBC Verify has found.

BBC Verify found a range of public interest content, including parliamentary debates on grooming gangs, has been restricted on X and Reddit for those who have not completed ID/age verification checks.

Experts warn companies are risking stifling legitimate public debate by overapplying the law. Sandra Wachter, a professor of technology and regulation at the Oxford Internet Institute, expressed alarm at the restrictions and told BBC Verify that the new bill was not supposed to be used to suppress facts of public interest, even if uncomfortable.

Among the restricted content identified by BBC Verify was a video post on X which showed a man in Gaza looking for the dead bodies of his family buried among the rubble of destroyed buildings. The post was restricted despite not showing any graphic imagery or bodies at any point in the clip. X subsequently removed the warning after being approached by BBC Verify.

Reader who attempted to view a video of a Shahed drone destroyed mid-flight in Ukraine were required to provide ID/age verfication even though nobody was injured or killed in the clip.

Among the Reddit communities which have been restricted is one called R/UkraineConflict, a message board with 48,000 members that frequently posts footage of the war. Similar restrictions, which urge users to log in to confirm your age, have been imposed on several pages which discuss the Israel-Gaza war and communities which focus on healthcare.

Meanwhile, clips of parliamentary debates have also been swept up in the restrictions. A speech by Conservative MP Katie Lam, containing a graphic description of the rape of a minor by a grooming gang, is available to view without restriction on Parliament's official streaming website, ParliamentLive, but is restricted on X.

 

Meanwhile Spiked reports on other examples of social media censorship
 

Five things we can't post about thanks to the Online Safety Act

See article from spiked-online.com

From grooming gangs to men's fashion, literally any topic of discussion can now be censored.

Here are five things Britons can no longer post or read about under the new internet censorship rules.

1) Francisco Goya's 19th-century masterpiece, Saturn Devouring His Son, was automatically hidden from British users of X. A thread on X detailing the life of Richard the Lionheart and the Crusades has also been suppressed, presumably it's been deemed Islamophobic.

2) A tweet calling for single-sex toilets was branded too sensitive by the censors for her to read.

3) A Guido Fawkes article headlined Keir Suffers Extinction Event, featuring a baby with Starmer's head superimposed on it, has been put behind the age wall on X.

4) Testimony from survivor and campaigner Sammy Woodhouse, detailing the brutal grooming gang rapes and abuses she suffered as a young girl, was censored on X as graphic content.

5) When compiling a list of posts that have been censored on X, Benjamin Jones of the Free Speech Union found himself censored for bringing the absurdities of the Online Safety Act to the public's attention.

Read the full article from spiked-online.com

On July 25, 2025, the UK's Video-Sharing Platforms (VSP) regime was repealed, and all notified services are now regulated under the Online Safety regime.

The  VSP regime ran in the UK for four years and was the UKs flagship online censorship regulation. Following its repeal, Ofcom took a look back at its journey to highlight what was achieved, as well as 5 things industry can learn from online safety regulation in practice. See article from ofcom.org.uk

What Ofcom doesn't comment on in these wishy washy achievements is to note how few video sharing platforms have stupidly decided to be based in Britain.