When mandatory age verification landed in the UK last August, many were surprised by how significantly it altered our daily digital interactions. Now, just months later, authorities are considering an expansion of these — but first, they want hear what Brits think about it.
Australia’s first-of-its-kind teen social media ban, enforced this past December, marked a significant turning point. It was a moment that prompted UK lawmakers to question whether the extensive Online Safety Act does enough to protect children online.
Understanding the national consultation — and why it matters
Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has said the consultation and any future legislation is intended to create “a digital world that gives young people the childhood they deserve and prepares them for the future.”
The consultation is open to the general public, and all responses are submitted anonymously.
Respondents can choose from three surveys: one for parents or carers of young people; one for children and young people; and a third open to all adults, including those representing civil society, the tech industry, and the general public.
While parents and teenagers are the most obvious stakeholders, it is just as important for other adults to share their views. This is particularly relevant for those tracking the erosion of internet anonymity and the security risks associated with sharing sensitive data to access basic online services.
Red flag #1: The imbalance between restrictions and alternatives
The first thing I noticed while taking the public survey was a clear imbalance between the various sections.
While some sections, such as “understanding how children use technology,” are naturally brief, topics like parental controls and digital education appear overlooked.
By way of comparison, the survey features only six questions regarding digital literacy and three on parental controls, contrasted with 38 questions focused on age restrictions and assurance measures.
This disparity suggests that lawmakers continue to view age-based restrictions as the primary way of advancing online child safety. That’s despite an open letter from over 400 scientists calling for a moratorium on mandatory age verification due to the technology’s potential risks.
In contrast, digital rights experts often point to enhanced parental controls and improved digital literacy as more privacy-preserving alternatives.
Red flag #2: Questions framed to favor age restrictions
Beyond the sheer volume of questions, the specific wording of certain entries appears to guide respondents toward supporting a more age-restricted internet.
For example, in the survey version targeting parents and carers, when asked if they support a legal requirement for social media platforms to maintain a minimum age lower than 16, the answers lacked an explicit option to disagree with the statement.
It’s worth noting that the version dedicated to all adults does include an ‘Other’ option, which respondents could use to disagree. However, it’s telling that parents — who are likely to be those more interested in taking the survey — are pushed to agree to age restrictions.
🆔Government to public: Do you want digital ID checks to be used to enforce a social media ban for under-16s☐ Yes☐ Definitely yes☐ Strongly yes☐ Yes 100%The “consultation” doesn’t appear to have a box for disagreeing. pic.twitter.com/iVaOTHM86NMarch 17, 2026
The survey version open to all adults also includes several open-ended questions regarding age restrictions and assurance methods. These provide a space for respondents to voice concerns about how such measures might impact digital rights, including privacy, security, and freedom of information.
However, I felt that the survey should have also included closed, explicit questions asking people’s views on potential risks of age restrictions and age assurance.
Without these explicit prompts, respondents unfamiliar with the technical nuances may miss the opportunity to weigh the impact of these measures on their digital rights or voice specific concerns.
Red flag #3: VPNs are seens only as circumvention tools
The section regarding VPNs and potential restrictions is particularly telling. Throughout the survey, VPNs are represented primarily as circumvention tools — or, to paraphrase one UK official, a “loophole” that needs to be closed.
Statements such as “Everyone should go through age checks to access a VPN if it would prevent children using them” could be seen as leading. Such phrasing may encourage respondents unfamiliar with VPN architecture to agree to restrictions without considering the broader privacy implications.
Similarly, the parental survey asks respondents if they are aware of their child using a VPN specifically to bypass restrictions. However, the survey provides no option to indicate that a child might use a VPN for legitimate privacy or security purposes.
Is it still worth taking part?
While the consultation process is clearly flawed, the opportunity for public feedback on such a significant shift in internet policy remains a welcome development.
Despite — or perhaps because of — these concerns, it is vital that parents, teenagers, and privacy advocates take the time to respond.
For those concerned about the impact on digital privacy and security, the open-ended questions regarding age assurance and VPNs offer a crucial opportunity. These sections allow respondents to voice perspectives that may not be fully captured by the survey’s closed-choice options.
The consultation remains open until May 26, 2026. This is the primary window for citizens to urge that the pursuit of a safer internet for children does not result in unintended harm to the digital rights of the wider population.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!
