UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s

2026-03-1114:087965www.openrightsgroup.org

MPs have rejected a Lords amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would allow a social media ban for under 16s.

This will give ministers huge powers to restrict the Internet without having to pass new legislation. The powers could be used to restrict access to websites, social media platforms, apps and games of their choosing. Ministers will not have to demonstrate harm to children, effectively ripping up work carried out by Ofcom to assess services according to the risks and harms they pose.

This mean that the current or future governments could restrict content they are ideologically opposed to. For example, a Reform government could force ID checks to access LGBQT content as part of their manifesto commitment “to end trans ideology” in schools.

Ministers would also have the powers to impose digital curfews and to limit the time spent on certain platforms – for example preventing under 18s from playing games such as Minecraft, Fifa and Fortnite after a certain time.

MPs also rejected a Lords amendment to restrict access to VPNs, but gave Ministers the power to introduce such a measure.

James Baker, Platform Power Programme Manager at Open Rights Group said:

“This broad amendment takes power away from parliament and Ofcom and hands it to ministers. Any future Government will not only be able to ban children from social media but any other website or online services of their choosing.

“The consequence of this would be every adult having to provide their personal data, or use their body and biometric features as a key to unlock the internet”.

“These proposals fail to address the structural problems that cause online harms, such as surveillance-driven advertising models and the dominance of a small number of Big Tech platforms.”

The new amendment is a blow for the privacy of adult Internet users who could be forced to undergo ID checks if they want full access to the Internet and to use privacy tools such as VPNs. This new amendment would mean that most adults in the UK would be compelled to undertake ID checks and hand over personal and sensitive data to third party age verification providers. But this ever-expanding industry is unregulated.

Open Rights Group has written to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Liz Kendall MP calling for the regulation of age assurance providers operating under the Online Safety Act. The letter was also signed by Age Verification Providers Association (AVPA) and over 600 members of the public. 

ORG is asking the Government, ICO, and Ofcom to establish compulsory privacy and security standards for age verification providers to ensure that users’ sensitive data is protected.

Over 400 security and privacy academics have called for all for a moratorium on the deployment of age assurance for the prevention of online harms “until the scientific consensus settles on the benefits and harms that age-assurance technologies can bring, and on the technical feasibility of such a deployment”. Read their letter here.

Fix the Online Safety Act

Read the original article

Comments

  • By Eddy_Viscosity2 2026-03-1114:341 reply

    In effect, this is the power to restrict internet to anyone.

    • By Refreeze5224 2026-03-1114:352 reply

      It is, and I have no doubt that is the entire point, despite them "thinking of the children."

      • By 21asdffdsa12 2026-03-1115:19

        Im sure the likes of prince andrew and keir starmers advisors think way to much the children

      • By fidotron 2026-03-1114:532 reply

        The Canadian version of this is especially cynical: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c309y25prnlo

        • By _verandaguy 2026-03-1115:211 reply

          To be clear: this is civil action by a family, not the position of the Government of Canada.

          • By fidotron 2026-03-1115:49

            There is no meaningful distinction, which is why a civil case in a foreign country is picked up by the BBC.

            Furthermore, the Gov are trying to deflect on to OpenAI (and the internet) because a huge part of the failings in that case involve them seizing the weapons from the perpetrator, and then giving them back.

        • By Eddy_Viscosity2 2026-03-1115:051 reply

          That article was about people suing openAI.

          • By fidotron 2026-03-1115:101 reply

            It contains "The plaintiffs allege no age verification took place on the site."

            As if this is a problem.

            • By dekken_ 2026-03-1115:21

              As if parents aren't responsible for the actions of their children

  • By antonyh 2026-03-1115:26

    I fail to see how this is technically possible. Virgin Media already censors chunks of the internet, but not in a way that currently would allow age verification.

    Beyond my ISP I'm virtually anonymous unless I log in. If it's blocked at the network level I cannot login. If it's not blocked by the network, then it doesn't know exactly which individual is using my network connection. Theoretically they could put an interstitial page to check credentials but we'd just end up sharing the login rather than sharing all our personal details in separate accounts, or more likely I'd just not bother and accept the 'child' experience.

    If I lose access to social media so be it. All that will do is change the landscape as the diaspora find a new uncensored social media.

    This all falls apart when it affects genuine work, then it's already too late. The only real option at this point is VPN.

  • By Lio 2026-03-1115:123 reply

    So now consider that the same government want to extend voting rights to 16 year olds.

    So you can vote but you can't control the media you use to learn about who you're potentially voting for. There is something not quite right about that.

    • By dyauspitr 2026-03-1120:52

      There’s plenty of that everywhere. You can sign up to die in a war at 18 but can’t drink alcohol until 21. That’s why laws exist, to codify and resolve edge cases.

    • By doublerabbit 2026-03-1116:59

      Catch-22. They want to censor and not let you learn about the opposite opposition restricting your vote to the current opposition at the same time pissing you off from voting for the current opposition for restricting your rights to learn about the opposite opposition.

    • By 21asdffdsa12 2026-03-1115:20

      [flagged]

HackerNews