UK bans social media for under‑16s: hurdles and verification

The UK government has proposed a strict ban on social media applications for individuals under 16, targeting ten major platforms. This policy mirrors one recently introduced in Australia, and similar measures are being considered across Europe. The primary motivation for this ban stems from concerns about the addictive nature of these platforms, features like infinite scrolling, and the prevalence of problematic content.

Technical Implementation Challenges

Implementing such a ban presents significant technical hurdles. The core challenge is how to effectively restrict access for underage users.

Potential Blocking Points

When a child accesses the internet, they typically use a phone or laptop, connecting via Wi-Fi through a home router to an Internet Service Provider (ISP), or directly via 5G through a mobile network operator (Telco). The content is then served from the social media platform's server. Potential points for blocking include:

1. Home Router:

   • Method: Technologies like Pi-Hole can be used as a DNS server to filter and block access to specific sites. When a user tries to access a blocked site, the router would report that the address does not exist.
   • Drawbacks:
     • Technical Difficulty: Setting up such blocks is often too complex for the average user.
     • Inconsistency: Effectiveness would vary widely, as some households might implement blocks while others do not.
     • Circumvention: Users could easily bypass these blocks by using a friend's Wi-Fi, a coffee shop's Wi-Fi, or their mobile data, none of which would have the same restrictions.

2. ISP/Telco Level:

   • Method: ISPs and Telcos could be legally mandated to block specific sites.
   • Drawbacks:
     • Management Complexity: The list of sites to block is dynamic and constantly changing.
     • VPNs: Users could circumvent blocks using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).
     • Age Verification: ISPs and Telcos cannot reliably determine the age of individual users connecting through their networks, especially in public Wi-Fi settings. A universal protocol for devices to transmit accurate age information would be required, which does not currently exist.

3. Device Level:

   • Method: Operating systems like Google's Family Link and Apple's Screen Time already offer parental controls that manage app usage and content. These could be enhanced to enforce age restrictions.
   • Drawbacks:
     • Age Verification: Devices need to accurately know the user's age. This is problematic because:
       • Users might input incorrect birthdates during setup.
       • Phones are often passed down within families, meaning the device's registered age might not match the current user's age.
     • Centralized Control: This places significant responsibility on two major tech companies (Google and Apple) to act as gatekeepers for internet access for an entire generation.

Government's Proposed Approach: Targeting Platform Providers

The UK government's proposed legislation does not focus on home routers, ISPs, or individual devices. Instead, it targets the social media platform providers themselves (e.g., TikTok, Meta, Snapchat), placing the onus on them to prevent underage users from accessing their services, backed by the threat of substantial fines. This approach is similar to how underage drinking is addressed in the UK, where selling alcohol to minors is illegal, rather than penalizing minors for possession.

Age Verification Methods for Platform Providers

If platform providers are responsible for age verification, several methods could be employed:

1. Government ID:

   • Method: Platforms could integrate with a government API or system to verify a user's age against official records (e.g., passport, birth certificate data).
   • Drawbacks:
     • Privacy Concerns: Many people are wary of digital IDs and the government having access to such data.
     • Circumvention: Users could still use someone else's ID details (e.g., a parent's).
   • Note: Australia explicitly prohibited the use of government IDs for age verification due to privacy concerns, which complicated their implementation.

2. Facial Recognition/AI Age Estimation:

   • Method: Computer vision models could analyze a user's face to estimate their age.
   • Drawbacks:
     • Accuracy: These models are not 100% accurate, especially given the varied developmental rates of children. They can be fooled by simple disguises (e.g., fake mustaches).
     • Privacy Concerns: Similar to government IDs, providing facial data raises significant privacy issues, even if platforms promise to delete the data immediately.

3. Credit Card Verification:

   • Method: Requiring credit card details for age verification, as credit card ownership typically implies a minimum age.
   • Drawbacks:
     • Circumvention: Children can access parents' credit cards or use debit cards from accounts like Revolut, which can be obtained by minors.
     • Limited Effectiveness: Not a robust solution for strict age enforcement.

4. Third-Party Age Checkers:

   • Method: Companies like Yoti specialize in identity verification, using licenses, passports, and other documents to confirm age. Platforms could integrate with these services to verify user age.
   • Drawbacks:
     • Data Privacy: These third-party companies store user data, raising similar privacy concerns to government IDs.
     • User Experience: Adds an extra step for users, potentially creating friction.

5. Phone Provider Verification:

   • Method: The phone's operating system (Apple iOS, Google Android) often knows the user's age. Platforms could query the device to confirm the user's age.
   • Drawbacks:
     • Age Accuracy: Relies on the user or family member having accurately entered the age during device setup.
     • Device Sharing: If a phone is shared or passed down, the registered age might not reflect the current user.

Broader Implications and Societal Shift

It's acknowledged that no system will be perfect. Determined individuals will always find ways to circumvent restrictions (e.g., lying about age, using VPNs, borrowing IDs). However, the government's stance is that this doesn't negate the need to try, given the measured harms of social media on children.

The hope is that such regulations will lead to a societal shift, similar to the change in attitudes towards drunk driving in the UK. Initially met with resistance, drunk driving laws eventually led to a widespread societal disapproval of the practice. The expectation is that over time, it will become socially unacceptable for underage individuals to use these platforms, much like underage drinking or smoking.

One criticism is that these bans might prevent children from accessing legitimate and beneficial online communities or information. However, the focus is primarily on large, general-purpose social media platforms.

A significant opportunity lies in encouraging the development of "safe internet spaces" for children. For example, while YouTube might be restricted, YouTube Kids is not. If platforms like YouTube Kids can be made as engaging and comprehensive as their adult counterparts, children might naturally gravitate towards these safer alternatives.

Ultimately, this is a complex problem with no easy solutions. Many countries are exploring similar measures, indicating a growing consensus that tech companies need to be more proactive in protecting children online. Public support for such measures is high, with surveys in Australia showing strong backing for age restrictions. The current lack of proactive measures from social media companies has led to this regulatory push.