The Predictable Failure of Digital Prohibition
Sometimes you watch a policy unfold and think, “Well, this is going to be a spectacular failure.” The UK’s age verification requirements for adult content sites have delivered exactly that outcome, with users simply abandoning compliant sites for ones that ignore the rules entirely.
The whole thing reads like a case study in how not to regulate the internet. Officials seemed genuinely surprised that people would seek alternatives when faced with handing over personal identification to access legal content. It’s the digital equivalent of being shocked that people found speakeasies during Prohibition.
What really gets under my skin is the complete disconnect between the people making these laws and how technology actually works. We’ve got politicians who probably need help turning on their laptops deciding how to regulate one of the most complex information networks humanity has ever created. The result? A policy that doesn’t protect anyone but does create a lovely little surveillance mechanism.
The comments I’ve been reading about this situation are equal parts hilarious and depressing. People are sharing fake IDs, using VPNs, or just finding non-compliant sites. Others are pointing out that Reddit now requires ID verification in the UK for anything marked NSFW, which means users can’t even block profiles without jumping through verification hoops. The absurdity is breathtaking.
From a technical perspective, this was always doomed to fail. The internet doesn’t respect geographical boundaries, and trying to create digital border controls is like trying to dam the ocean with a tennis racquet. Users will always find workarounds, and all you’ve accomplished is pushing them toward potentially less secure platforms.
The privacy implications are genuinely concerning too. These verification systems don’t just store your viewing habits – they create detailed profiles of when, where, and what you access. In an era where data breaches happen monthly and governments worldwide are expanding surveillance powers, asking citizens to voluntarily surrender their digital privacy for the illusion of protection is beyond tone-deaf.
Here in Australia, we’re watching similar discussions unfold, and I really hope our politicians take notes on this UK experiment. The same people who brought us robodebt and the census website crash probably shouldn’t be trusted with implementing complex age verification systems either.
The most frustrating part is that there are genuine issues around protecting children online that deserve serious attention. But instead of investing in digital literacy education, better parental controls, or addressing the root causes of harmful content, we get this performative nonsense that helps nobody while creating new privacy risks for everyone.
The internet has been around for decades now. We’ve seen this pattern repeat countless times: authorities try to control online behaviour through legislation, users adapt and work around it, and the only lasting effect is a slight erosion of privacy and freedom. Yet somehow, each new generation of politicians thinks they’ll be the ones to finally tame the digital frontier.
Maybe it’s time to accept that the internet is fundamentally different from the physical world and requires different approaches to regulation. Education, transparency, and user empowerment tend to work better than digital prohibition. But that would require admitting that top-down control isn’t always the answer, and that’s a conversation many politicians aren’t ready to have yet.