[melevittfl]

The definition section of the amendment defines a "relevant VPN service":

>“relevant VPN service” means a service of providing, in the course of a business, to a consumer, a virtual private network for accessing the internet;

I think it would be a significant stretch to say that a provider that provisions a VPS instance is a "business providing a virtual private network".

Just because you could run a VPN, it's not the VPS provider that is offering a VPN service.

[chrisjj]

I think it will successfully strech that far (especially after VPN provders move into VPS to avoid) not least because no-one but the provider could be held responsible.

[melevittfl]

I don't understand what "VPN providers move onto VPS to avoid" means? Can you clarify?

I can't see how they could apply it to VPS providers without meaning AWS, GCP, Digital Ocean, etc would all start having to do age verification checks. Can't imagine here would not be a massive push back against that.

[chrisjj]

I meant VPN providers offer VPS as a substitute.

I think they would include AWS and the pushback would be ineffective. Many AWS users could be immediately age-verified by existing payment card info.

[melevittfl]

By VPS, I mean a generic compute instance that can run whatever you want. Like a Linux instance. I'm not sure what you mean by "VPN providers offer VPS as a substitute" in that context.

Paying by card isn't enough to verify age. They'd have to specifically verify via passport or other ID.

[chrisjj]

> Paying by card isn't enough to verify age.

It is in UK.

Ofcom, the media regulator, has set out a number of ways websites can verify the age of users, external, including through credit card checks ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k81lj8nvpo