UK to demand social platforms take down abusive intimate images within 48 hours
- Reference: 1771500722
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/02/19/uk_intimate_images_online/
- Source link:
The government announced today that it would add an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill requiring platforms to "remove this content no more than 48 hours after it is flagged to them."
Platforms that do not do so would potentially face fines of 10 percent of "qualifying worldwide income" or have their services blocked in the UK.
[1]
The amendment follows outrage over the Elon Musk-owned chatbot [2]Grok's willingness to generate nude or sexualized images of people, mainly women and girls, which forced a [3]climbdown earlier this year .
[4]
[5]
Under the UK's proposals, victims would only have to report an abusive image once, and not have to contact multiple platforms or remain constantly vigilant for new uploads.
The government said: "Plans are currently being considered by Ofcom for these kinds of images to be treated with the same severity as child sexual abuse and terrorism content, digitally marking them so that any time someone tries to repost them, they will be automatically taken down."
[6]
It added that creating or sharing non-consensual intimate images will also become a "priority offence" under the Online Safety Act, "meaning this crime is treated with the same seriousness as child abuse or terrorism."
The government said: "We will publish guidance for internet providers setting out how they should block access to sites hosting this content, targeting rogue websites that may fall outside the reach of the Online Safety Act."
[7]EU looking into Elon Musk's X after Grok produces deepfake sex images
[8]Ofcom keeps X under the microscope despite Grok 'nudify' fix
[9]Charities warn Ofcom too soft on Online Safety Act violators
[10]Trump signs TAKE IT DOWN law meant to stop revenge porn
Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said in a statement: "The days of tech firms having a free pass are over. Because of the action we are taking platforms must now find and remove intimate images shared without consent within a maximum of 48 hours."
X is facing an EU probe, under the Digital Services Act, into Grok's willingness to produce explicit imagery, including of children.
When the probe was announced last month, [11]X told The Register : "We remain committed to making X a safe platform for everyone and continue to have zero tolerance for any forms of child sexual exploitation, non-consensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content."
[12]
The UK government's latest move was welcomed by lawyer Hanna Basha, Dispute Resolution Partner from Payne Hicks Beach, who acted for TV personality Georgia Harrison in her civil revenge pornography [13]case in 2022.
But she added: "Why 48 hours and not 24 or even 12? Every hour these images remain online compounds the harm."
She also said social media companies should be forced to display clear contact details. "Too often victims cannot even find where to report abusive content. This is a welcome step, but meaningful protection requires faster takedowns and real accountability from platforms." ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aZdBsBlWRpXa-EiSsOkV4wAAAEA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/03/elon_musk_grok_scandal_underwear_strippers_gross/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/15/ofcom_grok_probe/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aZdBsBlWRpXa-EiSsOkV4wAAAEA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aZdBsBlWRpXa-EiSsOkV4wAAAEA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aZdBsBlWRpXa-EiSsOkV4wAAAEA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/26/ec_open_new_investigation_into/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/15/ofcom_grok_probe/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/19/ofcom_osa_enforcement/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/20/take_it_down_law/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/26/ec_open_new_investigation_into/
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aZdBsBlWRpXa-EiSsOkV4wAAAEA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-66319446
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
The sharing part is already a crime, that hasn't changed so why would they comment on it?
Yeah poor innocent "social media". How about IMMEDIATELY?
The problem with IMMEDIATELY is that this leaves zero opportunity for any sort of review ..... which means that the take down process would have to be automated ..... which means that it instantly becomes a method by which anyone can have anything taken down that they want removed, regardless of whether it should be taken down or not.
We have already seen plenty of these automated take down (or under reviewed) processes being abused by those that want things taken down that should be left in place. Copyright holders have used these sorts of processes on things that qualify as 'fair use'. I'm sure it would not be too difficult to come up with plenty of other examples.
How long would you take, personally, to "review" these images before doing something about it?
I never said how long the 'review' should take, and I have no preference.
I merely pointed out the problem with your suggestion.
I also assume that you down-voted me because I did not 100% agree with your position. If so then that is a really mature response.
I do not, normally. I will happily argue with people here without downvoting them, I guess today is an angry day!
In this case, I do not see why you would object to immediate takedown. It is trivial to restore data AFTER review if appropriate.
I've already said that I've had second thoughts about IMMEDIATELY.
I'm happy for it to happen your way, because within a week someone will have automated (and weaponised) the take down request process. And if 'Social Media' have properly implemented a take down process then it will not be long before they are unable to serve the addicts with their daily pap, and the whole edifice of profit sucking shite will start to collapse.
There is nothing more that I would like than 'Social Media' as it exists today to become a fading memory that the world can slowly forget and recover from.
I have experienced the lose of family members to substance abuse, and it is not pleasant. At the moment I am seeing the loss of many members of society to addiction to 'Social Media', and I wish for nothing more than for there to be a way back for them.
Downvoted because you whined about being downvoted.
Update - turns out I DIDN'T downvote you. I wasn't actually sure, so I looked at the post and it looked "unvoted-on". So I tested it by clicking, and now I can only remove the downvote by upvoting (nice web design there!). C'est la vie!
Probably not very long, but there are another hundred thousand takedown requests in the queue...
Thinking about this again I think it is a wonderful idea!!!
1. Wait for 'Social Media' to put in place automated take down processes.
2. Create scripts to randomly flag something on their systems for take down.
3. Repeat randomly but in large quantities.
4. ???
5. Profit! Or at least the eradication of a number of 'Social Media' sites as more and more of their content is taken down!
It's (probably) not that simple
Dead right unfortunately. A short time limit will likely lead to automated takedown. That probably means "AI" which likely won't be cheap. Or particularly effective. And, for example, it's virtually certain given the number of crackpots in the world that takedown requests will turn up for online images of every nude work of art known to man from "Venus de Milo" to "September Morn."
There's probably some reasonable compromise. But it's going to take a lot of serious thinking to get the details right. And even then there will be problems. And abuses.
You realise the OSA doesn’t just apply to billionaire social media right? It also covers PHPbulletin boards and Other traditional forums, often run by an enthusiast for a community at their own expense in their own time.
12hours is a minimum since… y’know people have jobs and need reasonable opportunity to check their forum for mod notices and action that review. 48hours is more realistic.
Now, if you want to specify an “immediate” action for platforms with more than £100m in global turnover then that’s a different discussion. They should have 24/7 mod teams. But for small sites? Be realistic. If you legislate on the basis all operators have equivalent resource to meta, then the entire internet will be only Facebook/Insta/Tiktok - because everyone will say “I can’t comply with that” and close up shop (the OSA does actually make allowance for “small” services, but doesn’t define what a small service is, and OfCom have refused to provide meaningful definitions, so everyone has to assume they’re in scope for the whole caboodle).
These images are at least potentially illegal. Would you expect 48 hrs notice if they were posted to a site that you hosted? Do you think the police would "understand" your workflow?
The OSA has different categories of online services, the 12 hour limit could have been set for category 1 services.
"This statement would be the equivalent of fencing off a flyover and suing the council for providing the surface for someone's racist graffiti rather than dealing with the person writing it."
If the council could readily identify the artist and also knew that they had history of doing it but they didn't want to deal with it because they made a profit from the coffee bar they'd opened next to the graffiti then I agree - the council should be sued.
If the council also accosted people in the street and prodded them towards the fence and showing them the racist graffiti before putting a spraycan in their hand and saying "go on, see if you can do better, and have a coffee afterwards" then, again, I agree with you that the council should be sued.
"People who moan at the council about the streets being full of litter; not stopping to think that it is people who drop litter, not the council”
[1]Life is a PBR
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3IUXJbXbe0
> I can't help feeling the message to the public is correct but the obvious tentacle of Government censorship of entire foreign websites/domains rather than dealing with illegal posters is driving this.
I don't personally feel that ordering the takedown of illegal, abusive content targetted at individuals amounts to censorship – YMMV.
And yes, it would be lovely if we could go directly after the illegal content posters rather than the platforms, but how do you propose that might be achieved (without far more intrusive state/legislative intervention)?
You get the thing taken down first, THEN track down the poster with the cooperation of the platform/ISP.
It is called "police work", not "state/legislative intervention".
Agreed in priciple, but surely the problem lies with the "cooperation of the platform/ISP" part. That doesn't happen unless you legislate for the mandatory cooperation of the platform/ISP which, as we know, runs into all kinds of problems.
Are you from the US by any chance? Here in the UK it is not optional to cooperate with law enforcement.
You missed a bit...
X's statement is clearly unfairly truncated. I believe that the original stated:
" We remain committed to making X a safe platform for everyone and continue to have zero tolerance for any forms of child sexual exploitation, non-consensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content. Unless Elon thinks it's cool, in which case our position is obviously: **** you, we'll do whatever Elon wants us to. "
It's shocking to see such a negative portrayal of the poor, honest, trustworthy, and reliable X. It's not like they've ever done anything to deserve it!
Why not, why not, why not...
"But she added: "Why 48 hours and not 24 or even 12? Every hour these images remain online compounds the harm.""
Why not 1 hour... 1/2 hour.... 10 seconds?!?!?!?
FFS. Because 48 hours was chosen as a reasonable time limit and you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere
Re: Why not, why not, why not...
48 hrs is ample time to "enjoy" and disseminate the image. That is why.
"there there sweety, it will be gone in another 16 hours, I'm sure of it"
SICK
you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere
Yeah. Though arsehole Starmer''s proposed line in the sand is in the wrong place.
Just turn off all social media forever. Fuck Musk, Facebook, TikTok and the rest of these bottom feeding parasites.
The planet will be a much nicer place without them.
Oh no they wont!
"Platforms that do not do so would potentially face fines of 10 percent of qualifying worldwide income..."
Given that the ICO has similar financial penalty powers that is has never even got close to using, it's safe to assume that the Melon, Zuckertwat and Jeff "Melania" Bezos won't be quaking in their boots over this performative "threat". What even does "qualifying" mean here? If it's like Alphabet's tax bill then that income is likely to be an old threepence and a couple of buttons.
A better alternative
would be to take down the social network first. THEN remove the offending item.
Re: A better alternative
Then the arseholes responsible for their "algorithms".
Governments don't have a good record when it comes to decision making. UK government especially.
I can't help feeling the message to the public is correct but the obvious tentacle of Government censorship of entire foreign websites/domains rather than dealing with illegal posters is driving this.
"We will publish guidance for internet providers setting out how they should block access to sites hosting this content, " displays government intent ... where does it mention "we will prosecute illegal posters"?
This statement would be the equivalent of fencing off a flyover and suing the council for providing the surface for someone's racist graffiti rather than dealing with the person writing it.