flowgpt.com, as data

**We fully support the original intent of the Online Safety Act—to protect users online, especially children, and to combat illegal content.**However, in practice, the law applies a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework that treats all platforms—regardless of size, business model, or functionality—as if they were tech giants.Some of the key obligations include:* **Mandatory risk assessment and prevention systems**: Platforms must proactively identify the risks of illegal content appearing on their service—even if such content has never appeared before—and take measures in product design and platform architecture to mitigate those risks.* **Strict age verification systems**: Self-declaration of age is not enough; platforms must implement robust age checks, such as biometric or government-issued ID verification, which are costly and technically complex.* Companies that fail to comply may face fines of up to **£18 million or 10% of global revenue**, whichever is greater.* Company executives may face **personal criminal prosecution and even prison sentences** for non-compliance.This is not about unwillingness to comply. It is about whether it’s realistically possible for a lean, independent platform to meet these requirements at all.## 🚫 **Why this leaves us with no safe option**After extensive review of the legislation and its enforcement roadmap, we concluded:* **There is no clear exemption for small platforms**: Although the law references “proportionality,” it still requires all platforms—regardless of scale—to perform core compliance tasks, such as illegal content risk assessments and child safety obligations.* **No allowance based on feature complexity**: If a service includes any form of user interaction or could reasonably be accessed by children, it is subject to the full scope of the Act.* **Compliance is high-cost and high-risk**: