What they're not telling you: # internet-to-protect-kids-but-there-is-a-much-better.html" title="Governments are ruining the internet to protect kids but there is a much better way" style="color:#1a1a1a;text-decoration:underline;text-decoration-style:dotted;font-weight:500;">Governments are ruining the internet to protect kids but there is a much better way The regulatory push to implement age verification and content filtering across internet infrastructure treats the entire DNS layer as a compliance chokepoint when simpler, client-side DNS filtering at the router level would accomplish identical child safety outcomes with zero architectural surveillance expansion. Current child safety legislation in the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States operates on a foundational assumption: that protecting minors requires real-time content inspection at network chokepoints. The Online Safety Bill in the UK and the Age Appropriate Design Code administered by the Information Commissioner's Office establish enforcement mechanisms that effectively require Internet Service Providers to become content gatekeepers.
What the Documents Show
These regulatory frameworks don't explicitly mandate DNS-level blocking, but they create liability structures that incentivize ISPs to deploy the most comprehensive filtering available. The result is infrastructure designed for comprehensive visibility into user traffic patterns—not merely blocking, but logging and categorizing web requests across entire customer bases. The alternative approach, documented in technical standards from the DNS Privacy Engineering Group and implemented in consumer routers since 2015, involves pre-configuring ISPs to ship routers with family-safe DNS filters enabled by default while preserving user override capability. This architecture solves the stated child safety problem at the device level rather than at the network backbone. OpenDNS, Cisco's consumer DNS filtering service, demonstrates the mechanics: filtering decisions execute locally on residential equipment, no traffic mirrors to centralized inspection points, and users maintain technical control over DNS resolver selection.
Follow the Money
The filtering lists themselves remain static—they don't require per-request inspection of encrypted content or establishment of surveillance infrastructure. What regulatory agencies and ISPs consistently underemphasize is the distinction between filtering and inspection. Current implementations of age-gating systems, particularly those required by the Age Appropriate Design Code, necessitate ISPs or their contractors to inspect traffic patterns to verify user age and content compliance. This creates a structural requirement for data collection that exceeds what default DNS filtering requires. An ISP implementing family DNS filters on shipped routers collects only DNS query metadata if the parent doesn't disable it—optional, local, consumer-controlled. The regulatory response to child safety concerns has proceeded without genuine cost-benefit analysis of architectural alternatives.
What Else We Know
Legislators have accepted that comprehensive visibility is necessary to address the problem when technical literature demonstrates it is not. The Online Safety Bill's enforcement approach assumes ISPs must monitor content; the Age Appropriate Design Code assumes designers must verify user age at application level. Neither regulation seriously examined whether default router-level DNS filtering—a solved technical problem—would satisfy the same policy objectives. --- THE TAKE --- I find it striking that when regulators approach internet child safety, they instinctively choose surveillance infrastructure over technical simplicity. The pattern here is consistent across jurisdictions: when presented with a problem that has a solution requiring minimal institutional visibility, regulatory bodies select the solution that maximizes data collection and creates compliance dependencies. What this reveals about institutional failure is that regulators structure solutions around what agencies can measure and enforce, not what actually solves the underlying problem.
Primary Sources
- Source: r/privacy
- Category: Tech & Privacy
- Cross-reference independently — don't take our word for it.
Disclosure: NewsAnarchist aggregates from public records, API feeds (Federal Register, CourtListener, MuckRock, Hacker News), and independent media. AI-assisted synthesis. Always verify primary sources linked above.