I'm not the UK government, so how would I know for sure? I'm just making some assumptions, no more than that.
One common route that comes to my mind is this: block [something-dangerous] for children, then implement age verification for [something-dangerous], then use it as a tool of censorship. It's way easier to identify and track individuals based on their passport/ID/driving license than based on their email, IP address or even phone number. And then you're getting jailed for posts somewhere on BlueSky or X or on any other social platform because they were hate speech/disinformation/discrediting the armed forces (the last one is the real thing in Russia, and I just see the UK as the country which goes the same path) - while actually you was just criticizing the actions of people in power.
And you can also legally ban and block platforms, services and even software which doesn't satisfy the requirements of age verification.
That's how I see it; that is, I repeat, my assumptions and thoughts. I have never, never in my lifetime (which is rather short though) seen such proposals turn out to be good.
I think it's absurd to say we're anywhere near Russia, a literal dictatorship. Russia blocks almost all Western and independent media, blocks or throttles Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, and WhatsApp. People who discredit the military can be jailed for 15 years. This is all based on the Russian government's own opinion on what is "dangerous".
Conversely, social media is widely established as posing severe risks to children and teens. Heavy use is strongly linked to mental health issues, addiction, and disrupted sleep. It's not that different from banning the sale of hard drugs.
There is a lot of concern, yes, and no shortage of correlational type anecdata, sure.
Caution is well advised ... but hard drug equivalent causal effect? Not so much.
Scientists pour cold water on claims phones are rewiring kids' brains
Appearing before the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee this week, three researchers spent much of the session explaining that concern and evidence are not quite the same thing.
Asked what evidence exists on the impact of digital devices on infants and young children, Professor Denis Mareschal, director of the Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development at Birkbeck, replied: "There is very little, if any, causal research in the early years. Almost everything is correlational."
MPs kept coming back to the question – and the experts kept coming back to the same answer.
When questioned about social media's impact on adolescents, Professor Sarah-Jayne Blakemore of the University of Cambridge was equally cautious. "What evidence do we have of the impact of digital devices or social media on the adolescent brain?" she asked. "Almost nothing. There are a few small studies, but they haven't been replicated, and they're purely correlational."
Believe me or not, but I was discussing this with a lot of Russian people; I have some friends in Russia (and it's becoming increasingly complex to contact with them). And they tell that everything that they experience right now has also started with relatively "harmless" things like blocking piracy websites and some "far-right" Ukrainian media.
That just sounds wrong. It's a totally different political and cultural climate. Russia has been aggressively censoring the internet since the 2000's, including blocking websites simply for advocating opposition parties (the famous example being Garry Kasparov in 2009). Prior to which the state was already indirectly controlling almost all television and newspaper media. The idea that this is somehow the first step towards a fascist dictatorship is a clear slippery-slope fallacy.
Note that you have introduced the term "fascist dictatorship" into the conversation, not I. So that may be the issue with how you understand my words. Moreover, when I was comparing Russia to UK, I was only comparing them in terms of censorship and amounts of attempts to enforce a state control over the Internet.
And I fail to see how political and especially cultural climate matters in this discussion. Wasn't it the British prime minister, David Cameron, who back in 2015 pledged to ban all online messaging services which provide end-to-end encryption? Isn't that the UK in which Investigatory Powers Act (2016 one) exists? Isn't that in the UK where voices are heard to ban or regulate VPNs by introducing the mandatory age verification? What about the whole recent UK "Digital ID", or so-called "BritCard" effort? Clearly, the political climate may be different, the cultures may be distinct from each other, but still two countries may wander in roughly the same direction - at least as it seems to me in my personal view - when we're talking about censorship.
My argument was never about the "climate". It was rather about the "current weather", so to speak. And the forecast, based on all these data points, looks remarkably similar - but, I must reinforce, only to me - that's my own, personal opinion.
With all that said, to be completely honest - I don’t really care what happens to the UK. It’s not my country at all; I have no connection to it, and what happens there affects me personally, my family, and my friends about 0%. Whether the UK establishes yet another (in the world) dictatorship with an iron curtain, or simply introduces Internet censorship and surveillance for the good of the people, or manages to preserve true democratic values and not trample on human rights - to be perfectly honest, I couldn’t care less. At least - until the UK’s domestic policies start harming other countries through their expression in foreign affairs. For me, the main thing is that nothing like that happens in my country or on my doorstep; the rest isn’t that important, no matter how cynical that may sound...
The difference in political climate matters because the public has the ability to vote in a party that will roll back the Investigatory Powers act, if it was something they cared about. The difference in cultural climate matters because Russian citizens are used to authoritarianism whilst British citizens tend to balk. And the "current weather" is so far apart that your comparison is absurd. Compare their press freedom indexes, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index#Rank...
Fewer voter from young people, though. The proposed curfew is even more stupid: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/how-uk-social-media-ban-wo...
Which would mean that a sixteen year old would be able to stand in a polling station and vote at 9pm but not then go on Tiktok once they'd left.
(yes, the same government which doesn't trust children with social media has also lowered the voting age. No, this makes no sense. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/representation-of... )