@neil

Here's a simpler proposal: Create a UK IPv6 subnet for children (a /32 or something). Assign part of it to each UK ISP. Require all consumer ISPs to provide an option in their routers to create a separate SSID that gives you IPv6-only access and uses an IP in that domain. Require any mobile ISP to provide an option for opting into this address space to whoever is paying the bills.

Require that the /64s in that block are rotated regularly so that mapping from an IP address (or /64 subnet) to an individual is hard.

Require any site that is not suitable for children to block that /32 (they're mostly blocking UK IPs anyway).

As a bonus, this creates a load of IPv6-only devices.

@david_chisnall @neil I have an even simpler proposal that solves most of the problems these verification and "online safety" laws are purposedly made to fix: forbid minors from operating smartphones. It's easy, it's simple to enforce and it preserve the privacy of the general population. All the negatives of using the internet are non existent on a PC or they're self-mitigated because they're mostly born from 24:7 usage, and all the positives (and more) can be had anyways.

@neil @david_chisnall the ban wouldn't affect the whole family but only the children, parents could still use their smartphones and buy old-style feature phones, which are cheaper anyways, for children that need them. And providing laptops to poorer children through schools would in any case still be globally cheaper than the costs of all the other policies that are being discussed.

@neil @_hic_haec_hoc

If they have their own smartphones, it just works. If they share a parent’s one, the parents can supervise.

@neil This is the Government's response to the clause the Lord Nash suggested on a conditional social media ban for under 16s and which the Lords inserted. Bill is now in ping pong so the Commons will presumably take out Lord Nash's amendment and stick that in and then the Lords may reverse it. Presumably the point the Government will make is that they won't do anything til they have the results of the consultation (launched yesterday) analysed.
[ cont.]

@neil It may depend on how willing Parliament is to trust the Government not only to do something, but to do something sensible. At least with the Nash amendment there was a greater sense of what the proposal might be. This is a massive Henry VIII clause - and not the only one.

Have a look at amendment 429B to the Crime and Policing Bill currently at report stage in the Lords:
https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/65178/documents/7946
This covers ai generated content which is criminal content for the OSA.

@neil @david_chisnall shared smartphones for homework would not be a problem because their use would be intrinsically supervised and limited in time. What those who advocate for these laws (and I'm not saying I agree with them) are supposedly against is the detrimental effects on children of uncontrolled access to the internet and usage of social media, and that is drastically reduced if the children don't have an always-on personal device full of software developed to be addictive

@neil I guess the point is that the legislative provision is not determinative - I think the government's claim from its earlier press releases on this was that taking these broad powers will enable it to act swiftly once the evidence is in - or not act at all presumably if that is what the evidence shows. It is at the expense of scrutiny because even if the secondary legislation has to go through affirmative procedure the houses are still left with a yes/no choice and can't amend.

@neil @david_chisnall what I'm suggesting would be equivalent in practice to regulating smartphones (or call them "general purpose, always-on internet-connected devices with photo and video capabilities") like we do with alcohol and tobacco: if you're an adult you can buy and use them, if you're a minor you can't, and others can't let you use theirs

@neil I hadn't seen it though I was in a roundtable with him today where he said something similar. It is good to have his argument written down as I didn't get the detail in conversation....
My initial view is the fact that the provisions is related to the illegal content duties only does limit the scope of the Secretary of State's powers a little - certainly I see it as more of a restriction than he does.
[cont.]

@neil For example, on my reading you couldn't apply the harmful to children duties to AI generated content. And I don't see how this could give rise to a new criminal offence. I have not gone in to the amendment that thoroughly though. I'll have to have a closer look at what he says.

@neil I feel like I am chasing my tail (if I had one that is)

@_hic_haec_hoc @neil @david_chisnall

(or call them “general purpose, always-on internet-connected devices with photo and video capabilities”)

That definition also covers any laptop with a webcam, if (like me) the user never turns their laptop off. It is quite difficult to provide an exact definition of what a smartphone is. You could add a “must have a cellular modem requirement”, but there are laptops with cellular modems.

How would you enforce this law anyway? And what about minors constructing their own smartphones (with a 3D printer, a small SBC, a touchscreen, a battery, and a cellular modem, it probably wouldn’t be all that hard to do).

@noisytoot @david_chisnall @neil that's what you have lawyers for (and as you can easily deduce I'm not one). Defining stuff has never been a problem anyway, at worst you can always use the old "I know it when I see it" approach but I'm sure that there's a ready-made definition available somewhere. How do you enforce any law? There are laws that forbid adults from sharing alcohol and tobacco products with minors, how do you enforce those? You can certainly enforce my proposal the same way.

@neil @david_chisnall we as a society have, rightly or wrongly, decided several times that some things wouldn't be allowed anymore. If controlling what minors do on the internet and what information they have access to is as important an issue as it seems from the multiple attempts to regulate it we're seeing in so many different countries then a way will be found. And I think my idea is a lot less intrusive and respectful of people's privacy than what we're seeing being discussed now

@LornaWoods @neil Hi both, it’s all hellish confusing, isn’t it! My current take is:

- The Crime and Policing Bill amendment is to extend scope of OSA to AI (undefined!).

- The ping-pong amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing etc Bill are a counter to the Nash Lords amendments. I assume they have gone broad in scope (‘internet services’) in order to cover off his VPN amendment.

As to the ping-pong amendments, even Henry VIII would have blushed to take powers to age-gate the entire internet!

@LornaWoods @neil PS ‘Internet service’ would take the existing OSA s.228 definition: “a service that is made available by means of the internet.”

@LornaWoods @neil On the AI amendment, this is interesting - albeit now overtaken by the actual amendment. https://www.create.ac.uk/blog/2026/02/27/grokking-the-online-safety-act-the-chatbot-blind-spot-in-uk-online-safety-law/

@neil @LornaWoods Is there any hope of operators of tiny little fedi sites having input on that consultation?

@LornaWoods @neil And I imagine that the Delegated Powers Committee will have words to say about both amendments.

@cyberleagle I suspect that will be lots of words, some of them perhaps in bold and underlined!

@cyberleagle @neil That was my assumption too.

@cyberleagle @neil - yes, I saw that - broad

@LornaWoods @neil More from Jonathan Hall. https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/IRTL-Online-Safety-Act-2.1.pdf

@neil So long as the child is over the age of 5.

@_hic_haec_hoc @david_chisnall