We tell you why strict prohibitions turned out to be a complete failure.
Checks on the Internet should have closed children access to dangerous content, but a recent survey in the UK shows the reverse picture. Many teenagers perceive such barriers not as a serious defense, but as a task for ingenuity, which can be solved in a couple of minutes.
The Internet Matters Group surveyed more than 1000 British children and their parents after stricter requirements for the Online Safety Act began to operate in the country. The law forced online platforms to strengthen user age control, but the results of the study showed that the protection often works much weaker than expected.
Nearly half of children, 46%, said age restrictions are easy to avoid. Only 17% called such mechanisms difficult. Among the ways of bypassing, the survey participants called the introduction of a fictional date of birth, other people's documents, the use of characters from video games to deceive video selfies systems and even mops drawn on the face, which, according to children, helped to bring down age recognition filters. According to Internet Matters, 32% of children admitted that they already used bypass methods.
A separate problem is related to parents. 17% of adults admitted that they themselves helped children to undergo age restrictions, and 9% turned a blind eye to such cases. The Internet Matters explained that some parents consider the risks to be controlled if the child uses the service under supervision and adults are confident in the safety of what is happening.
Such logic undermines one of the key objectives of the Online Safety Act – to restrict the access of minors to harmful content. However, nearly half of children, 49%, said they recently encountered dangerous materials on the Internet, even if they did not bypass age barriers directly.
The head of Internet Matters Rachel Haggins believes that the state and industry need to act harder. According to her, online services should initially be built taking into account the age and safety of children, and not add protective measures after the harm caused.
Checks on the Internet should have closed children access to dangerous content, but a recent survey in the UK shows the reverse picture. Many teenagers perceive such barriers not as a serious defense, but as a task for ingenuity, which can be solved in a couple of minutes.
The Internet Matters Group surveyed more than 1000 British children and their parents after stricter requirements for the Online Safety Act began to operate in the country. The law forced online platforms to strengthen user age control, but the results of the study showed that the protection often works much weaker than expected.
Nearly half of children, 46%, said age restrictions are easy to avoid. Only 17% called such mechanisms difficult. Among the ways of bypassing, the survey participants called the introduction of a fictional date of birth, other people's documents, the use of characters from video games to deceive video selfies systems and even mops drawn on the face, which, according to children, helped to bring down age recognition filters. According to Internet Matters, 32% of children admitted that they already used bypass methods.
A separate problem is related to parents. 17% of adults admitted that they themselves helped children to undergo age restrictions, and 9% turned a blind eye to such cases. The Internet Matters explained that some parents consider the risks to be controlled if the child uses the service under supervision and adults are confident in the safety of what is happening.
Such logic undermines one of the key objectives of the Online Safety Act – to restrict the access of minors to harmful content. However, nearly half of children, 49%, said they recently encountered dangerous materials on the Internet, even if they did not bypass age barriers directly.
The head of Internet Matters Rachel Haggins believes that the state and industry need to act harder. According to her, online services should initially be built taking into account the age and safety of children, and not add protective measures after the harm caused.
