A coalition of 19 organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Mozilla, and the Tor Project, has sent a letter to UK policymakers warning against proposed age-gating and access restrictions. While framed as child protection, these measures risk eroding privacy, anonymity, and the open internet itself. Instead, the group calls for addressing the systemic business models and design choices that drive online harm, preserving the web as a global public resource for all, especially young people.
Who is behind the letter and what is their core message to UK policymakers?
The letter is led by the EFF and signed by 18 other organizations, including Mozilla, the Tor Project, and the Open Rights Group. Their core message is that UK policymakers should prioritize tackling the root causes of online harm rather than imposing blunt, restrictive measures like age-gating. They warn that such policies, despite being framed as child safety initiatives, could fundamentally reshape the internet in harmful ways—by increasing surveillance, reducing anonymity, and fragmenting the web into walled-off jurisdictions. The coalition urges lawmakers to focus on holding platforms accountable for their underlying business models, such as pervasive data collection and engagement-driven design, which often fuel harm in the first place.
What specific policy measures are being criticized, and why are they problematic?
The criticized measures stem from the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which proposes sweeping age-gating requirements and access restrictions. These would apply not only to minors but effectively to all users across a wide range of services—from social media and video games to VPNs and even basic informational websites. The coalition argues that such policies rely on age assurance technologies that are either inaccurate, privacy-invasive, or both. Mandating these systems would force users to verify their identity simply to browse the web, creating serious risks: expanded surveillance, increased vulnerability to data breaches, and the erosion of online anonymity. Furthermore, these restrictions could cut off young people from vital resources like support networks and educational content.
How could age-gating at scale harm the open internet?
Age-gating implemented broadly threatens the core architecture of the open web. As the letter notes, such measures could fragment the internet into a patchwork of restricted jurisdictions, limiting access to information and eroding interoperability. This fragmentation would likely entrench the dominance of powerful gatekeepers, such as app stores and major platform ecosystems, which have the resources to comply. Smaller, independent websites and services—those that add diversity and innovation—would struggle to afford or implement complex age verification systems, stifling competition and free expression. Ultimately, the internet would become less accessible, less open, and less of a global public resource, a shift that the coalition argues is unnecessary and antithetical to the internet's founding principles.
What root causes of online harm does the coalition say are being ignored?
The letter emphasizes that much online harm stems from how platforms are designed: to maximize engagement and profit through aggressive data collection and targeted advertising, often at the expense of user safety and autonomy. These systemic practices—not the lack of age verification—drive problems like harassment, manipulation, and exposure to harmful content. Rather than imposing access bans, the coalition calls for holding companies accountable for these design choices. They advocate for policies that prioritize user rights by design, such as privacy-by-default settings, transparent algorithms, and limits on exploitative data practices. Without addressing these root causes, any restriction is merely a band-aid that fails to reduce harm while introducing new threats to privacy and openness.
Why is the internet considered vital for young people, and how could these policies backfire?
The signatories highlight that the internet remains a vital space for young people, offering access to information, support networks for marginalized youth, and opportunities for self-expression that may not exist offline. Overly broad restrictions risk cutting off these lifelines without meaningfully reducing harm. For instance, age-gating could prevent teenagers from accessing mental health resources, LGBTQ+ communities, or educational content that requires anonymity. The coalition warns that such policies could drive young people to less regulated spaces or exclude them from essential digital services altogether. The goal should be to create a safer online environment while preserving these benefits, not to erect barriers that disproportionately affect vulnerable users.
What alternative approach does the coalition recommend instead of age restrictions?
The coalition recommends a rights-respecting approach that tackles the business models and design choices driving harm. Instead of blanket age restrictions, they urge UK policymakers to enforce accountability for platform companies—requiring them to reduce surveillance-based advertising, increase algorithmic transparency, and build safety into product design from the start. This aligns with the principle of privacy by default and empowers users rather than controlling them. The letter also calls for investment in digital literacy and for policies that uphold the open, global nature of the web. The message is clear: protecting users online demands nuanced, thoughtful measures that address harm at its source, not heavy-handed restrictions that undermine fundamental rights and internet freedoms.