The below message has been republished by me from the Stop Killing Games Subreddit. Because of the increased censorship on for-profit communication platforms, I will no longer be linking to these platforms for call-to-action communications about the open web. See my article “My Response to Open Web Calls-to-Action” for more information
Hey everyone,
Summary: Stop Killing Games and Alderon Games signed and supports this joint statement because game preservation depends on the open web. Laws like the UK Online Safety Act, the UK Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and California’s Digital Age Assurance Act / AB 1043 show a growing trend toward age gates, access restrictions, and platform-level controls. These may be framed as child safety measures, but they can also make private servers, modding communities, fan projects, open-source tools, and preservation work harder or even impossible to operate.
Why SKG signed
Stop Killing Games has signed a joint statement with groups including Mozilla, EFF, Open Rights Group, Tor Project, Proton, Big Brother Watch, Internet Society, and others about the risks of current UK online safety policy.
We wanted to explain why this matters to SKG specifically.
SKG is about making sure games are not destroyed when official support ends. That does not just mean “publishers should keep servers on forever.” It means players and communities need practical ways to keep games working after publishers move on.
That often depends on things like:
- private servers
- modding communities
- fan patches
- community launchers
- forums, wikis, and Discords
- open-source tools
- independent hosting
- preservation projects
Broad age-gating laws and access restrictions can put that whole ecosystem at risk.
Urban Dead shows why this matters
A recent example is Urban Dead, a free browser-based MMO that had been running since 2005. It announced a shutdown after nearly 20 years, citing requirements created by the UK Online Safety Act.
Whatever your view of that specific case, it shows the problem clearly: small, old, community-run games can become too legally risky or too difficult to operate.
That is directly relevant to game preservation.
If laws are written in a way that assumes every online service is a giant platform with lawyers, compliance teams, ID-verification systems, app-store integration, and moderation infrastructure, then small communities get squeezed out.
The result is not just inconvenience. It can mean servers shut down, tools disappear, mods become harder to distribute, and fan projects become legally unsafe to run.
This is not only a UK issue
We are also worried about similar trends elsewhere, including California’s Digital Age Assurance Act / AB 1043, which pushes age assurance into operating systems, app stores, and software distribution.
That could make independent software, Linux-based ecosystems, community launchers, modding tools, and private server hosting harder to maintain.
Child safety matters, but this is the wrong approach
To be clear: protecting young people online matters. A lot of us are from the generation these laws are supposedly about, and we know there are harmful parts of the internet. Nobody is saying those problems should be ignored.
But it is frustrating to see policymakers suddenly claim everything is “for our safety” while young people are often left to deal with bigger problems on their own elsewhere. And even when the goal is reasonable, this approach goes far beyond what is normal or proportionate. Mission creep is real and some actors dont just creep.
The issue is that blunt access bans and mandatory age checks do not fix the root causes of online harm.
They often create new gatekeepers, collect more sensitive data, and make the open web harder to use. They also risk punishing the small community projects that are least able to comply, while the largest platforms adapt and become even more entrenched.
Read more about the issue
We encourage people to use this as an opportunity to inform themselves more thoroughly about the issue.
The joint statement responds to the UK Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and the wider policy discussion around online harms, including proposals such as curfews for users and broader restrictions on online access.
Some of our co-signers have published more in-depth summaries, and they are worth reading.
For SKG, the principle is simple:
Games should not become unplayable because a publisher flips a switch.
And communities should not be prevented from keeping games alive because the open web is being turned into a permissioned, age-gated, platform-controlled system.
A safer internet should not mean a more closed internet.
That is why we signed.
The trend is clear and we believe its time for a REAL debate on the issue, in that sense we announce: