New Era of Verification

By: Gabrielle Bernabe

Growing up in an era when internet access was not regulated, I believe there should be some type of restriction for those under18 online. I also think that most of the responsibility for teaching young people how to use the internet comes from parenting. For my generation and prior generations, we were raised on “stranger danger” and similar warnings. Yet, as many people know, the internet in its many forms has muddied those words of caution. From Omegle to Snapchat and now Roblox, there are countless ways for young children to be exposed to things that they should not see or are not ready for. 

Restrictions on the internet are a given at this point, yet the way they are being implemented raises concerns. As mentioned before, much of the knowledge of how to navigate and behave online comes from how one  was raised and what one’s parents taught. My parents were not particularly internet savvy, yet the ways they taught  me to behave as a person translated into how I acted online. I had no interest in lying about my age for attention posting anything provocative until I was over 18. This is not to place myself on a high horse, but to emphasize that the ways people, especially children, act online often stem from their home lives. With that being said, new methods requiring us to use ID’s to verify everything on the various platforms we use are also concerning.

With most things, there is always an alternate reason behind the legislation we follow. Often, broad laws are created and later exploited through loopholes until updates are made. Given that we live in a surveillance state, the idea of Spotify, Youtube, Tiktok and other platforms making ID checks mandatory feels strange. Yes, restrictions are needed, but this feels like an overreach. Why should I be required to show my ID to use music or watch a video? When it comes to inherently adult content, there is no ID age verification on these platforms, largely because we have expected a modicum of privacy. Nobody wants their tabs available to a hacker who might access what BillyJoel627 likes, especially if those interests are not socially acceptable. This refers to content that is not illegal. The creation adult content also needs scrutiny, but evidence is required to prosecute those who produce it. When it comes to crimes that are sexual in nature and could harm groups unable to defend themselves, it is important that police can investigate and intervene before someone acts in real life. Yet the argument from lawmakers seems less about protecting children and more about increasing tracking by monitoring music, viewing history, and TikTok algorithms because they may be “potentially harmful.” Going after things that are only potentially harmful—rather than avenues that already are harmful—reflects the direction in which our government is heading. 

The tides are changing. We are seeing more efforts to control, limit and push propaganda in ways we have not seen before. Through recent presidential administrations, the U.S. has begun to mirror administrations we once criticized for restricting free speech. In places like China and North Korea, the government tightly controls the media, hiding public opinion until it fades. Because of this control, it takes consistent effort to bring buried information to light. America has the capability to do the same and has done so, but the rise of the internet has made hiding information and shaping public perception significantly harder.

To reiterate, the internet should be restricted to keep children from accessing harmful and sexual content. However, the way current laws are written suggests there may be another reason for the sudden push for control over media. It would make it easier to suppress ideas that the government does not want the public discussing For example, the debate over the Epstein files and why Rep. Adelita Grijalva was not sworn in for weeks, delaying a crucial vote on their release. (As of Nov. 12, 2025, she was finally sworn in and, after 50 days, is able to serve her constituents.) About 50% of people cannot read beyond a sixth grade level. Restricting avenues for information for those who already struggle to comprehend news is another step toward a more totalitarian government. 

Overall, the situation is unfolding in interesting ways. Although there may be positive reasons for increased restrictions on the World Wide Web, I urge everyone to consider why these restrictions exist, who they affect, and why they are appearing now.