Digital Age Verification Laws: Censorship in Disguise?

"There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches." (Ray Bradbury, "Fahrenheit 451")

by Rob Ott

A future where you are required to scan your face, fingerprint, or government identification to access your email, interact with social media, or even log in to your computer is not just dystopian science fiction — it is quickly becoming a possible near-term reality.

In an environment of increasing federal government surveillance and intrusion into our private affairs, software age verification laws are gaining in popularity, with proponents claiming they will protect children and prevent crime. These laws would require most technologies that have become integrated into our daily lives to force users to positively identify themselves. Other countries, such as the U.K., have already implemented these laws to some degree, and they are beginning to show up in the United States as well. Is this for the greater good, or it it a blow to our individual privacy?

In October 2025, California passed the Digital Age Assurance Act (Assembly Bill 1043), which will take effect in 2027. This law requires all operating system providers to collect and verify age information during program launch, transmit that information to the software company in real time for verification, and sort users into age categories. While it doesn’t require face or ID card scans, this law lays the groundwork for such requirements. Texas and Utah have passed laws that require ID or face scan for access, although these are currently limited to app stores on mobile devices rather than embedded in the device’s foundational software.

Last year, the U.K. implemented laws that not only require the above elements but also general monitoring of all user-generated content, including private conversations, as well as age verification to access any website that hosts user-generated content, such as Wikipedia.

The internet has drastically changed how most people interact with current events, share ideas and intellectual resources, and engage in creative projects. We rely on this connectivity to stay in touch, learn about the world, and be productive in work and art. Today, people gladly labor for no pay to share knowledge, whether by contributing to an encyclopedia article on an obscure historical figure or creating a file of a useful part that can be generated on a 3D printer. The flow of discourse is free and fluid, for better or worse. What would the world be like if this were to change?

One effect of the U.K. age verification laws is that Wikipedia may no longer be accessible to U.K. residents. The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that hosts and maintains Wikipedia, does not have an effective way to comply with the requirements and plans to possibly cut the U.K.’s access to the website entirely. The replacement for this trove of user-contributed information will likely be resources that are controlled either by corporate media or by the state itself. This outcome feels like it was pulled straight from the pages of a dystopian novel, with a free and open resource becoming one that only some can access, with great effort, and possibly for a fee.

It is clear that these laws constitute a gross restriction on access to information. At minimum, they are an invasive hurdle for all users, and at worst, they can be viewed as the first steps of blanket state and corporate censorship and control of the internet as a whole. Further, the personally identifiable information that would be collected must be transmitted, stored, and analyzed somewhere — and where are the assurances that the storage location would be secure against malicious actors?

The greatest advocates for these laws fall into two main camps: socially conservative activist groups and big tech companies. The former wants to restrict access to viewpoints that conflict with those they espouse under the guise of moral protection. The latter wants to control, and therefore profit from, access to information, regardless of the social cost. The ideal corporate internet of the future is less of a vibrant global forum of free ideas and more like a subscription streaming service, with content curated and delivered to those who pay for the privilege.

The state, of course, seems to relish the idea of controlling access to supposedly harmful information for the good of minors, but there is no clear definition of “harmful” and no guarantee that only minors would be affected. We need to ask: Why do we need to be known to the powers that be so intimately, and what do they gain? Que bono?

We are subject to constant scrutiny by forces more powerful than us. AI-equipped cameras scan our license plates, tying our whereabouts to databases administered by private companies under government contract. Our devices store our advertising profiles, tracking our online activity to sell to companies hoping to influence our buying habits. Operating systems increasingly integrate news stories and advertisements from associated media companies. Our faces are scanned and the images stored in databases when we travel (a practice one can opt out of, for now). Our privacy continues to shrink, and we are on the brink of losing freedom in the digital spaces where we still have the ability to speak our minds and hear from others doing the same.

There are groups fighting software age verification laws, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has launched a resource hub for those who wish to challenge online age gating. Moving away from corporate software or cloud services and toward open-source or privacy-oriented alternatives is also a way to resist. For operating systems, you can use Linux instead of Windows on your computer and Graphene instead of Android on your smartphone. Proton or CryptPad are end-to-end encrypted services that can be used instead of Google Docs. (This article was written on an Ubuntu Linux laptop via Proton Docs, and the author found the process of transitioning to both quite simple and painless.)

For now, at least, resources on shifting to a more private and secure digital presence are readily available. However, this could change; your phone and computer may soon no longer be an open gateway to knowledge provided by fellow humans in all their beauty and wildness, but rather a walled and manicured garden cultivated by those who tell you they know what is in your best interests.