[mdp2021]

In fact I miswrote: I understand it is about presenting a document to access webpages. In the equivalent proposal in Australia, they spoke about presenting a document to access search engines. Surely my mention of "forums" was rushed on the spot and reductive.

So, what did you mean? Have I fell into some confusion in legislations?

[IanCal]

The problem here is there is a big bit of legislation and people are focussed on one outcome of it, which is what you will have heard.

It’s a bill about safety online. The onus is moved to the provider to mitigate harms or decide they don’t apply/are low risk.

For porn providers the outcome is fairly clear, to check your users are of age. This was kind of always the case but “are you over 18 yes or no” is not enough.

For other sites it’s making sure there are reporting mechanisms for child abuse content. It’s making sure there’s moderation to manage grooming, self harm stuff etc.

People can fairly argue about the bill but it’s not about age or user verification. That’s one outcome for one set of sites.

[mdp2021]

Consider the source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/no-uks-online-safety-a...

I understand from that source that the legislation "mandates that any site accessible in the UK - including social media, search engines, music sites, and adult content providers - enforce age checks"; all accessible sites that could contain """harmful content""" (so basically a dramatically high amount of sites of importance - with particular regard to search engines, which link to the controversial).

Now: how will, say, a search engine conduct age verification without identifying the user.

Because the issue here is that of anonimity online (i.e., the disappearance of the "online" - the end of the Web).

> That’s one outcome for one set of sites

We understand from the article that the set, as said, includes the basics...