The UK Government is determined to get Digital ID somewhere with the hopes of expanding its use by any means necessary. It's a solution looking for a problem.
At least they admit to it not becoming the ONLY way to verify. The UK has a, in my opinion, successful scheme for years called "Challenge 25" and deny you if you cannot provide physical ID.
The Ban for U16s is only going to push those who seek it out to darker areas with more risk. And for those who don't its only going to shift the current harm done onto those same children once they are old enough to then legitimately access theses services. Implementing the ban isn't going to fix a systematic failing of social media providers. This is the first step in a thinly veiled plan to re-implement the already unpopular UK Digital ID plan, under the guise of "protect our kids".
I remember there was a trend with some UK Influencers using some "Ladder and a High-vis" tricks to enter places for a while to show how rough physical security is [0]. I believe its the youtuber, Max Fosh, who managed to do it back to back at the International Security Expo, first in the UK [1] and then in the US [2], with the fake names 'Rob Banks' and 'Nick Everything'.
I've studied security culture before and in most cases everything comes down to a sliding scale with security on one side and convenience/accessibility on the other, the more secure something is, the less accessible it is and vice versa.
That product placement was so undefined. Its value it added to the script was null. Functionally, if it had a better type of script it might have returned a better result else it looks like it has just fallen short, no exceptions.
100% feels like a false flag under child protection. parental controls have been around for a very long time, it is up to the parents to do this, not the government or government bodies.
I am yet to ever see any UK Government petition make any tangible difference to policy. If the Digital ID Petition with over 2.9 million signatures[0] didn't sway them, I sadly don't think this one will change anything either.
Choosing autism speaks as a place for support and advocacy is an interested and, in my opinion, a short-sighted choice. They don't hold a strong track record or convey an image of trust towards the ND community. Even when they tried to improve their brand image, their funding mostly going into advertisement and their current choices such as comparing Autism to Cancer and stating that it is a hopeless condition (At least changing away from the autism is curable stance they had) are less than ideal.
At least they admit to it not becoming the ONLY way to verify. The UK has a, in my opinion, successful scheme for years called "Challenge 25" and deny you if you cannot provide physical ID.