Lords vote brings UK “Social Media Ban” one step closer
Kit Knightly
Yesterday, the British House of Lords brought the looming end of online anonymity one step closer when they voted to support an amendment to the pending Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would ban children under 16 from using social media.
It’s been said more times than anyone can count, but any “social media ban” based on age would – in reality – be an excuse to require all users to verify their identity and thereby end online anonymity, and eventually usher in government backed digital ID apps.
The good news is that some dissenters in the Lords seems to be aware of this danger, and spoke of it openly:
A bit of a lone voice against cross-party fervour of Lords baying to ban social media for the under 16s. It really won't keep kids safe and could create a range of unintended consequences. But also it makes ADULT age-gating ID checks compulsory, for all user to user services.… pic.twitter.com/PSKPyu6qAl
— Claire Fox (@Fox_Claire) January 22, 2026
…though I would add, in this case, the consequences are far from “unintended”. The side effect is the intended effect.
The press are, naturally, toeing the line. The Guardian, faithful agenda-setters that they are, try to sell Sir Keir Starmer as reluctant to institute such a ban, and that the Lords are “pressuring” him to act.
This is an obvious and rather pitiful lie, this ban has clearly been the desired outcome for months. But faux reluctance is always important when becoming a tyrant. Always better to appear to be answering the call than imposing your will.
As ever, this isn’t just a UK issue. Australia got the ball rolling and the EU isn’t far behind.
Meanwhile, across pond, the US version of the same legislation has been “revived” according to Reclaim the Net, and Canadian officials are drawing up plans of their own, with the slightest wrinkle of a lower age cut-off.
Even as the leaders of the “free world” gather in Davos to take pot shots at one another, the evident truth is they either agree on their most fundamental policies, or the power to make those decisions is entirely out of their hands.
As the world powers pretend to conflict, the reality is they move in concert toward the same end.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Take note, UK residents. I’m an Australian in my early 60s. I lost all access to Substack, including to my own account (original content, subscriber list, etc.), in early December when Substack unilaterally decided to impose an “age verification” process on all Australian users following the introduction of Australia’s social media ban for users under 16 years of age.
Notably, Substack is not subject to the Australian social media ban. They were not required to do this; and yet they did it anyway.
The “age verification” process involves providing digital identification (facial imaging, etc.) through a third-party vendor, which in its ‘fine print’ admits to using the services of a bunch of other companies in one way or another, some of which you wouldn’t want having your personal information (e.g., Amazon Web Services).
I have tried in vain to access Substack using a VPN service. I somehow managed to sneak in and download my own content a few weeks ago, but now I cannot get back onto Substack at all. At every turn, it blocks me with its pop-up panel about their “age verification” requirement. I cannot even reply to a reader’s comment.
UK, you may very well be next. Back up all your content now. And leave Substack as soon as you can. Do not continue to support this company with your attention and your creativity.
The exact same thing happened to me as well Chris. I had paid subscriptions with at least 8 writers on Substack and at least 24 unpaid subscriptions. It came a surprise to me when I went to check on the latest articles just before Christmas and the Verify Your Age screen popped up instead. As you say, Substack were under no obligation at all to implement this. “And yet they did it anyway”. I’m still getting email notifications of articles and can still read them there if it’s just a written article, but any articles with a video or podcast embedded in them, I can’t watch or listen because that triggers the Verify Your Age screen which I point blank refuse to do. I was using a second bank account to pay for my Substack subscriptions but am now deliberately not leaving enough money in there so the subscriptions lapse. I was really annoyed about this as well. Greetings from Melbourne.
They are already censoring in the UK even without the online Children’s ” wellbeing ” and Schools safety bill.
Absolutely unenforceable – also the social media firms will be up in arms about this as they will lose money – and be less able to brainwash the young – I can’t see it being about identifying us as they already have that via e-mails – social media names, and nicknames, which are tied to accounts, then there’s the businesses that advertise on social media platforms, that revenue will also fall – no I see this stunt going the same way as the ID Cards, and being pulled at the last minute.
Think about it – the young are their future customers getting them hooked early in life is a must for the social media platforms, and as Britain is the same as the US a Corporatocracy – this bill is bound to fall later.
“Absolutely unenforceable – also the social media firms will be up in arms about this as they will lose money…”
I thought that, too, when Substack introduced their totally unnecessary “age verification” requirement for Australian users. (See the comment I just posted.)
I’ve been thinking for the past 5 or 6 weeks (the ban came into effect in early December) that Substack will relent because they’re losing so many eyeballs and so much revenue.
Perhaps that will be the eventual outcome. But not so far.
Perhaps most Australian users simply went along with it and provided the vendor (Persona) and its back-room vendors with high-resolution images of their faces and other digital identifiers.
Based on what happened during covid, I’m guessing it’s the latter: most people have complied.
BET YOU CAN’T READ IT W/O LAUGHING OUT LOUD
1-minute, german-penned satirical article about their own response to the Greenland debacle. https://www.eugyppius.com/p/nato-crisis-deepens-as-trump-demands