It’s entirely reasonable to worry about privacy, data collection, and government overreach. Any age-verification system creates new infrastructure for proving identity or age online, and people are right to scrutinise that. But it also doesn’t follow that every attempt at age restriction is therefore equivalent to mass surveillance or should be dismissed out of hand.
Likewise, pointing out that children will find ways around restrictions isn’t, by itself, an argument against having restrictions. Kids have always circumvented rules. The relevant question is whether a measure meaningfully reduces access or harm, not whether it is perfectly enforceable.
I also don’t think it’s accurate to frame support for these measures as inherently “dangerously stupid”. Many supporters are responding to concerns about addictive platform design, bullying, self-harm content, algorithmic recommendation systems, and the amount of time children spend on these services. You can disagree with their proposed solution without assuming bad motives or indifference to civil liberties.
Where I think the debate should focus is on effectiveness and proportionality. If age-verification systems are ineffective, easily bypassed, or require unacceptable levels of data collection, then that’s a strong argument against them.
But that’s different from arguing that any attempt to restrict children’s access is necessarily an attack on privacy or freedom.
And if we agree that major platforms have not done a particularly good job of protecting children, then “people will just use something else” doesn’t fully answer the policy question. It simply shifts the discussion to what, if anything, should be done instead.
The damage is done in the UK. The regulation needs to be written with privacy first, or it will undoubtedly be taken advantage of by bad actors. To think anything else is possible under capitalism is dangerously stupid.
That doesn’t address the argument being made.
It’s entirely reasonable to worry about privacy, data collection, and government overreach. Any age-verification system creates new infrastructure for proving identity or age online, and people are right to scrutinise that. But it also doesn’t follow that every attempt at age restriction is therefore equivalent to mass surveillance or should be dismissed out of hand.
Likewise, pointing out that children will find ways around restrictions isn’t, by itself, an argument against having restrictions. Kids have always circumvented rules. The relevant question is whether a measure meaningfully reduces access or harm, not whether it is perfectly enforceable.
I also don’t think it’s accurate to frame support for these measures as inherently “dangerously stupid”. Many supporters are responding to concerns about addictive platform design, bullying, self-harm content, algorithmic recommendation systems, and the amount of time children spend on these services. You can disagree with their proposed solution without assuming bad motives or indifference to civil liberties.
Where I think the debate should focus is on effectiveness and proportionality. If age-verification systems are ineffective, easily bypassed, or require unacceptable levels of data collection, then that’s a strong argument against them.
But that’s different from arguing that any attempt to restrict children’s access is necessarily an attack on privacy or freedom.
And if we agree that major platforms have not done a particularly good job of protecting children, then “people will just use something else” doesn’t fully answer the policy question. It simply shifts the discussion to what, if anything, should be done instead.
The damage is done in the UK. The regulation needs to be written with privacy first, or it will undoubtedly be taken advantage of by bad actors. To think anything else is possible under capitalism is dangerously stupid.
Australia’s social media ban – is it working?
Obviously regulation has been and is always better than prohibition. Prohibition is a lazy “quick win” political move and always has been.