By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent amendment proposed by a cross-party group of House of Lords Peers seeks to ban children in the UK from using VPNs. If enacted, VPN providers would be obligated to implement stringent age verification measures for all UK users, and the government would establish a monitoring regime to enforce compliance. This proposal aims to prevent children from circumventing age verification under the Online Safety Act. While supported by various Lords members, the amendment’s future remains uncertain as it requires approval from both the House of Lords and the House of Commons before becoming law.
Read the original article here
UK Lords propose ban on VPNs for children; well, here we are again, wading into the murky waters of internet regulation. The idea, as I understand it, is that some members of the UK’s House of Lords are floating the possibility of banning VPNs for children. And, well, my immediate thought is a mixture of exasperation and a healthy dose of cynicism. It’s like, haven’t we learned anything?
The idea feels a bit like chasing shadows. Even the Chinese government, renowned for its extensive internet controls, hasn’t fully managed to achieve total VPN suppression. What makes anyone think this will work? It’s like putting a bandage on a broken leg. The underlying issues remain.
It strikes me that these proposals often stem from a lack of understanding about how the internet actually works. The average age of the Lords is apparently quite high. It’s not the year 1658 anymore. If they are going to attempt to police the internet, they really need to understand how the internet operates. This feels like an effort born out of fear rather than any real grasp of the realities of online life. It feels like this is more about control and less about actual child safety.
Let’s be clear: VPNs are, at their core, tools. They can be used for good, and, yes, they can be used for not-so-good. The proposed solution involves age verification. This feels like a weak point in the whole proposal. Are we seriously going to require everyone, even children, to submit ID to access the internet?
And then, what about the kids with a bit of tech savvy? They’ll just find a workaround. A VPN is simply a way to connect two different networks. They’ll find ways to circumvent this. The tech-savvy will likely just download a VPN through a foreign network. The cat and mouse game begins.
The core issue isn’t VPNs themselves; it’s the lack of communication between children and their parents. It seems we’re dancing around the real problem: effective parenting. Instead of shielding children from everything, why not talk to them? Why not explain the risks and empower them with knowledge? This approach is a hundred times more effective.
The focus here seems backwards. This seems like a first step toward a more general ban on VPNs. The underlying intent is more about surveillance than it is about protecting children. And, let’s be honest, it would be much easier to implement and monitor than the more complex issues of abuse and exploitation that exist online.
Age verification, in this context, is ultimately about monitoring and controlling who has access. The irony is, such measures can actually make things worse. Children, in an attempt to get around these restrictions, might be pushed toward less secure, less monitored corners of the internet. It can drive kids away from safety features that took ages to build.
It’s all too easy to imagine the slippery slope: “ban on VPN~~s for children~~ use without identification.” The lack of trust is astounding. This kind of legislation feels like an overreach, a knee-jerk reaction to a complex problem.
The focus should be on building trust and communication. The proposal is an example of incompetent micromanagement and it feels far from solutions that are going to solve the root problem. We need people who actually understand how the internet functions and want to see how the world works.
This isn’t a solution; it’s a distraction. And the fact that this is even being discussed feels like a step backward in the fight to protect children online. The whole situation feels as if it were taken from a satirical website.