Small island nation tries bold tech education strategy Ask any parent: banning kids from doing anything doesn't work. On the contrary, it's just about the most powerful way to motivate them. As The Register reported last week, the UK government is planning on kicking under-16s off social media. The move echoes a similar one by the Australian government, which we reported at the end …
So what's your solution Liam?
The tech companies aren't going to risk their bottom line by doing anything meaningful and not every parent understands how or is willing to police their child's online activity.
Yes, the clever/determined under 16's will learn about VPNs etc but I'm willing to bet a large percentage will simply be too lazy and find some other way to annoy the grown-ups (my 14 year old certainly falls into this category).
> So what's your solution Liam?
I do not think that you understood the article.
However, I have already explained; it is summarised in the last 4 paragraphs of this story:
https://www.theregister.com/on-prem/2026/04/22/linux-may-get-exemption-from-colorado-age-check-bill/5222771
it's not up to the author to suggest a solution. This from a blog I read this morning, "If I don't think that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot JFK, I don't need to suggest who did."
Banning things simply drives them underground. e.g. Prohibition of Alcohol in the US.
OK, so for the benefit of me and anyone else who is struggling ... what the chuff is it about?
To begin with I read it as "to get contrary people to do something you want - tell them to do the opposite" with some nice TP Headology quotes.
You mention "It reminds us of the aid package for VPN providers known as the Online Safety Act" - hence my comment that I think a lot of teenagers will be too lazy to find workarounds (plus a genuine "what would you do" question).
You then correct me and point me towards the last 4 paragraphs of an article which seem to say "owners of online services not wanting to bear the responsibility for their users" and you'd repeal an American law.
Feels like maybe your article has sacrified being clear in favour of being clever?
> Feels like maybe your article has sacrified being clear in favour of being clever?
It is not mean to be clever.
It is meant to be funny.
It is a sarcastic, cynical take, which explores just one of several likely reasons that the legislation will not work, by exploring what is an accidental and unintended but desirable outcome, by hypothetically saying _in a way which is obviously wrong_ that it may have been *intentional.*
Which it manifestly was not.
'taint gonna fookin' work.
'taint gonna fooking work whether the author can come up with a way tha' tis gonna fuckin' work or no'.
The point is, 'taint gonna fookin' work.
Enough with the apostrophes. To put it another way: if you want to stop 12 year old boys looking at boobs*, you're going to have to come up with a better method to achieve that than telling them where the boobs are and that they're not allowed to go there.
[*] For 12 year old girls see the same problem in the opposite direction.
"but I'm willing to bet a large percentage will simply be too lazy..."
Bad bet I think. It's true that many (most?) teenagers might not be able to come up with a way to defeat age checks on their own. But MY bet would be that within three days of under-sixteen bans coming into effect, 66% or more of the Great Britain teenage population will have been exposed to at least five ways to defeat the age checks (three of which might well work) through contact with their peers.
The solution is to educate and empower parents. There is a lot that could be done. Controls in routers, promoting child safe SIMs.
Some parents being neglectful does not mean its a good idea to solve the problem on the assumption all parents are neglectful. Some teachers abuse kids (several news stories recently), so we should close down schools? Fix it for the typical (loving parents) and deal with the rest separately.
Liam has helpfully provided a link to exactly what he proposes, but it appears that most commenters aren't bothering to click and/or read it.
The one-word summary is: moderation.
The multiple-words summary is: age-based restrictions are not a solution, they will not work. A candidate solution that could work would be removing anonymity and forcing platforms to moderate contents. With actual enforcement.
This would reduce their profits, so it would definitely be a fight, but it could be done. The worst they could do in retaliation would be geoblocking the UK, which they won't, because they know that it would result in a strong local alternative popping up within six months to a year, and then expanding from there.
> the UK government is planning on kicking under-16s off social media
Not wishing to be picky but it isn't planning that, at all.
At best it is implementing - or requiring the tech firms to implement - some theatrics intended to assuage the concerns of those who fear what some children might be exposed to some of the time. It is impossible to create a 100% water-tight preventative measure just as it has been for every other "ban".
However, by working within the constraints imposed on it by a liberal democracy, this is about as far as any government could go.
It falls under the heading of something must be done, this is something, so we'll do it
> Personally, I was highly amused by the article.
Oh good! Thank you very much!
> The folly of mandating something that leads to the opposite (or in the case of parenting, deliberately doing it for the reverse effect).
THAT is what the article was about... and looking for a silver lining.
> TBF I read as far as "sinister mandarins" (other types of oranges are available) and "mind control" and stopped at that point.
Then you didn't understand it either. You did not even get the tone.
I am MOCKING the phrases you quote and the sort of people who use phrases like these.
> Assume you have a broad "spectrum" of readers.
*Deep sigh* I had at least hoped for intelligence and a degree of cynicism.
1. The article is not serious. THE ARTICLE IS A JOKE.
2. The government did NOT intend the ban to improve tech knowledge.
3. However, the ban may accidentally be educational.
4. The point being: no matter how well intentioned, rules have unintended consequences. These consequences will be both good and bad.
5. Good rules have bad consequences; bad rules have good ones. This is how life works. It is unavoidable.
6. The article is not speculating about whether this rule is a good idea or a bad one; it does not matter, because it won't work.
7. The article IS saying that it will not work.
8. The rules neglect the real problem: social networks are toxic even when they have rules trying to prevent toxicity. That itself is a cause of toxicity.
9. The point being that putting a bandage on gangrene will not help. The age ban is a bandage. It is trying to cover up the problem, not treat the problem. What people who think that is a good idea would not expect is this:
https://gizmodo.com/say-hello-to-the-new-species-of-fly-officially-approved-to-clean-human-wounds-2000774336
Meaning: Putting maggots on gangrene might well help. This is not what people would think.
10. The bigger point being that the likely consequences are likely to be basically unrelated to the intended consequences.
To explain that: fresh air helps more than covering up something infected and noxious. Burying it is not the answer. The real answer is to remove the thing that is nasty and toxic. Fresh air and bright light help more.
To unpack the metaphor: if you have a nest of evil ugly toxic parasites then shine a light in: make them use their real names and real faces, as I already explained above.
This post has been deleted by its author
Well yes, that's the point.
This is tech publication and it attracts tech types and tech types come in a wide variety of personalities. Some of whom typically don't necessarily **register when subtle humour is in play. (or even not so subtle because Liam was being quite obvious)
Case in point: I am here writing this to explain in clear terms what I wrote before.
** NPI.
I'm not sure what definition of "planning" you're using, but using the one I've used for some time, yes, they are. Planning something doesn't mean they have a perfect way of implementing it without any gaps. Planning just means they want it and have an idea of how to start, they do, and they're executing that. We can hope that, after they do this, they get bored and don't go any further, because I can easily come up with much more effective, though also not foolproof, ways to accomplish their goal. I'll not tell them what those are in the hope that they are too stupid to come up with those themselves, but that's unlikely if they really want their goal to be more successful.
Age gate will require identification of the users.
Once BYO age gates will be proven inefficient, cumbersome and risky from national security and privacy point of view, the "solution" will be there waiting.
Blair:
https://institute.global/digital-id-what-is-it-and-how-it-works
Insiders reveal how Larry Ellison’s money turned Blair’s institute into a tech sales and lobbying operation for Oracle:
https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/blair-and-the-billionaire/
Anyone remembers Nairah's testimony used for support of Iraq war?
Similar tricks to manufacture consent for this mass surveillance apparatus benefiting the rich.
> Age gate will require identification of the users.
I think you do not understand the article either.
However, the line I quoted I agree with.
Real verified ID for everyone and you cannot post without it. Anything: comments, videos, images. You accept full legal liability for everything, including use of copyrighted material without credit.
If that destroys social networks...
Good. Great. Mission f*cking accomplished.
You seem content enough to post in this one. I don't think it would have much traffic with proven and public identities required on every post. Similarly, open source, the thing you cover and support, would be substantially weakened with that as well. You don't have to care if that's your opinion, but when you say these things, it really sounds like you don't recognize what would happen without the level of online pseudonymity we currently have.
> You seem content enough to post in this one.
Using, you will note, my real name and the real email address I have had since 1991. It was my 2nd email but I lost the first when I left university.
That means this email address is older than the WWW.
I use the same username everywhere, except where it had already gone when I go by "liamproven".
I practice what I preach.
I meant that you post here even though I don't go by my name as don't most of the others. The fact that we're using pseudonyms doesn't seem to have put you off. If networks with identity were so much better, it would be more logical for you to eschew a site like this where most people intentionally avoid it and gravitate to something like Instagram where, though they're not all verified, most accounts do use natural names and have plenty of background to confirm it.
I suppose that, without a more complete description of why you think verified identities is a good idea, I won't have a great chance at expressing to your satisfaction the many problems there are with it, so perhaps that is a discussion for another day. Unsurprisingly, I'm entirely unconvinced so far.
to think that Discworld and most of the leading characters in it are a damn sight more rational, intelligent and principled than our lot.
We seemed to have enrolled a legion of trolls to run our world and for good measure turned up the heat.
Esme Weatherwax… Mistress Weatherwax or Granny to you, I would imagine. I think only Nanny Ogg commonly addressed her as Esme†, but she was a force of nature herself.
Sir Terry's witches are perhaps my favourite of his Discworld characters.
† and I suppose Mustrum Ridcully.
"We seemed to have enrolled a legion of trolls to run our world"
Not trolls. Rather, stupid people who take direction from trolls.[0]
The fix is to stop voting stupid people into positions of power. Just stop it. Everybody. We're ALL[1] guilty of it.
[0] e.g. The absolute morons who believe Q-anon is (was?) real, instead of recognizing it for what it really is, a joke trolled into life by the kiddies over at 4chan, to irritate the adults just for the lulz. Or the complete work of fiction that some idiots call "antifa", for reasons that are beyond me ... I mean, who reading this is NOT ANTI FAfascit? Or perhaps the absolute twaddle that was "pizza-gate". I could go on, but I'll spare all y'all.
[1] "All" being the citizens of the so-called Western World. Yes, all of the collective you.
"The fix is to stop voting stupid people into positions of power"
That's be lovely, but here in the UK it's been a while since we had an election where anyone on the ballot wasn't firmly in the stupid category. It's the biggest single driver of political disengagement amongst the voting public (I think.)
From here it looks much the same in the US too, but with an attempt at disenfranchisement to help the process along?
To boot kids off socials, it'll require a way to determine who is and isn't eligible.
Which will mean some sort of ID check.
And what better way than by a government approved "citizen's digital ID"? Because clearly all the people hostile to the idea are painfully misguided, right? We can absolutely trust the government to be responsible with such information (and not just willingly hand it over to a foreign spy outfit and/or lose it on a USB key on a train), right?
This, like the OSA, will be worded in such a way that it can mean whatever they need it to mean when they need it to mean that.
And there I was thinking this sort of crap only happened in places like North Korea or countries with "Democratic" in the name...
Comrade Sergio your Digital ID is not running
*turning it on*
Comrade Sergio your reported location is Lima, Peru, however, you were seen 30 minutes ago at London Road, Forest Hill.
*turns off VPN*
Comrade Sergio, your handler has heard the sigh. Repeat 10 times: “Order is mercy. Obedience is peace. The Party corrects me because the Party cares.”
