The War on Porn Regular Updates about the Assault on The Adult Industry
Related Articles
A new ban on VPNs could hit web users in the UK following a vote on a law change. And yeah, that sentence alone makes you pause for a second. It has that quiet, slightly unsettling “wait… what?” energy — the kind that sneaks up on you between inbox refreshes and half-finished cups of coffee. You don’t expect something as invisible and ordinary as a VPN to suddenly become headline material, yet here we are.
The House of Lords has now passed a vote which would, if approved by the government, see an amendment to a law which would ban under-18s from using a Virtual Private Network (VPN). On the surface it sounds tidy and well-intentioned. Underneath it, though, sits a tangle of questions about privacy, enforcement, and how much digital freedom anyone — especially young people — should actually have.
VPNs have increasingly been used in the UK since the Online Safety Act was put in place. Often used by employers to create a network to share resources, VPNs can also be used to spoof or hide your browsing location, thereby sidestepping geographical restrictions. A VPN is a system which connects somebody’s device – normally a computer or smartphone – to a server in a different location. This means that the websites that person visits cannot see their IP address. Think of it like slipping on a digital disguise — not to vanish completely, but to move through the internet without leaving your name tag on every door you open.
It is used by many people for privacy or getting around restrictions that websites put on who can visit a page. It can also be useful for allowing people to work from home and still access their workplace’s resources. I’ve leaned on a VPN more times than I can count while traveling or working remotely — one of those quiet tools you only notice when it breaks, or when someone suddenly tells you it might disappear.
Last week, a Conservative-led amendment in the House of Lords called for a change to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill following calls from campaigners including Hollywood star Hugh Grant. It’s one of those oddly modern moments where celebrity advocacy bumps into legislative machinery, and suddenly a policy debate has a familiar face attached to it.
Peers backed by 207 votes to 159, a ban on providing VPN services to children over concerns they can be used to bypass age verification restrictions on accessing adult content. The logic is straightforward enough: if age gates exist, lawmakers don’t want easy digital side doors around them.
Changes made by peers to the Bill will be considered by MPs during the process known as ping-pong, when legislation is batted between the Commons and Lords until agreement is reached. The name sounds playful, almost harmless. The outcomes, of course, rarely are.
Separately, in a heavy Government defeat, peers supported a ban on social media for under 16s too. That’s not a small add-on — that’s a tectonic shift in how young people would experience daily life online.
Supporters of the Australian-style ban have argued parents are in “an impossible position” with regard to the online harms their children are being exposed to. And honestly, that rings true. Anyone who’s watched a teenager scroll endlessly into the night knows the uneasy mix of concern, resignation, and quiet panic that can creep in.
Technology Secretary Liz Kendall announced a three-month consultation this week, which will consider the advantages and disadvantages of a ban, as well as possible overnight curfews and actions to prevent “doom-scrolling”, before reporting back in the summer. It sounds like a collective deep breath — gather the facts, test the ideas, try not to rush into something that reshapes daily habits for millions of families.
However, Tory former schools minister Lord Nash, who has spearheaded calls for a ban, argued the late concession simply represented more delay. You can almost hear the frustration between the lines, the sense that patience has already been exhausted.
He said: “The Government’s consultation is, in my view, unnecessary, misconceived and clearly a last-minute attempt to kick this can down the road.”
Proposing an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Conservative peer told the upper chamber: “Many teenagers are spending long hours – five, six, seven or more a day – on social media.
“The evidence is now overwhelming as to the damage that this is causing.
“We have long passed the point of correlation or causation. There is now so much evidence from across the world that it is clear that by every measure, health, cognitive ability, educational attainment, crime, economic productivity, children are being harmed.”
He added: “This is going to happen. The only question is when. We have the opportunity to do it now in this Bill, and every day which passes, more damage is being done to children. We must act now.”
A Government spokesperson said: “We will take action to give children a healthier relationship with mobile phones and social media.
“It is important we get this right, which is why we have launched a consultation and will work with experts, parents and young people to ensure we take the best approach, based on evidence.”
And that’s the uneasy tension humming beneath all of this. Everyone wants kids safer online — that part isn’t controversial. But once you start tightening the screws on tools like VPNs and access itself, you’re not just nudging behavior. You’re redefining privacy, autonomy, and who ultimately controls the shape of the internet inside everyday life. The line between protection and overreach gets thin fast.
Maybe this really is the moment lawmakers draw a harder boundary. Maybe it’s another long rally of legislative ping-pong before anything truly changes. Either way, it’s hard to shake the feeling that this debate isn’t really about VPNs at all. It’s about who gets to decide how much freedom we’re willing to quietly trade away — and whether safety, once promised, ever really knows when to stop.
