Age-Gated Social Media Legislation: Things That Make You Go Hmmmmmm
- The White Hatter
- Aug 26
- 9 min read
Governments are moving toward age restrictions on social media platforms, often setting the bar at 18+ yrs. The goal is well intentioned, that being to protect young people from harmful content and reduce the risks of exploitation, bullying, or overexposure online. On the surface, this sounds sensible. However, if we look more closely, the idea of a blanket ban until 18yrs raises questions about consistency, fairness, and effectiveness.
Here in Canada, both provincial and federal governments permit minors under 18 to take part in activities that carry significant responsibility or even potential danger. Often, this is allowed when a parent or guardian provides consent, but in some cases, no parental involvement is required at all. As you will read, in many provinces in Canada a 16 year old can consent, or even deny certain medical treatments on their own. Provincial and federal government already accepts the idea that young people are capable of making consequential decisions under the right circumstances, so why should this not apply to social media as well?
Here are just a few examples:
Military Service In Canada and Other Countries
Canada: Teens can join the reserves or Regular Force at 16 if in school (with consent). Full-time Regular Force entry begins at 17 (with consent until 18).
Australia: Apply at 16½; begin training at 17 (with consent).
UK: Apply at 15 years, 9 months; basic training at 16 (with consent).
US: Minimum entry age is 17 (with consent).
Firearms in Canada
Youth ages 12 - 17 can borrow and use a non-restricted firearm for hunting or target practice with a “Minor’s Licence”, provided parents approve.
Flying in Canada
16yrs: Recreational permit, glider licence, or ultra-light permit.
17yrs: Private pilot licence.
18yrs: Commercial licence eligibility.
Scuba Diving In Canada
At 15, teens can earn the full adult level PADI Open Water Diver certification.
Driving A Car In Canada:
Learner’s Permit (Start of the Graduated Licensing Process)
Alberta: Lowest in Canada, learners can begin at 14 years old.
Territories (Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut): Typically allow learners at 15 years old, though details vary.
All Other Provinces (e.g., BC, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, etc.) legal learner age is 16 years old.
Legal Age Of Sexual Consent In Canada:
The basic legal age of consent for sexual activity in Canada is 16 years. Anyone under this age generally cannot legally consent.
However, there are “Close in Age” (Peer Group) Exceptions. These exceptions exist to account for consensual activity between individuals close in age:
14 and 15 year olds can legally engage in sexual activity if their partner is less than five years older, and there is no relationship of trust, authority, dependency, or any exploitation involved.
12 and 13 year olds may consent if their partner is less than two years older, and the same conditions (no exploitative or authority relationship) apply.
Health & Medical Decisions In Canada
In some provinces, such as Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and British Columbia, 16 year olds can consent to or deny certain medical procedures on their own without a parents involvement, reflecting a legal recognition of their capacity to make high stakes decisions.
Each of the above noted experiences requires maturity, judgment, and responsibility. They all carry real risks. Yet society and government trusts parents and caregivers to weigh whether their youth or teen is ready, and to provide their consent when appropriate. Shouldn’t we at least consider applying the same principle to social media, rather than imposing a “one size fits all” age gate?
Supporters of 18+ restrictions often argue that social media is unique because it is commercial and largely unsupervised, which is true. Unlike Scuba, the military, or handling a firearm, where there is often adult supervision, most teens use social media alone, often in private.
Acknowledging these differences is important. However, they do not erase the underlying inconsistency that if we trust parents and caregivers to consent to high-stakes, supervised and unsupervised teen activities, then they should also have a role in deciding when their child is ready to navigate the onlife world be it 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17yrs of age. The real issue is not whether teens should be online, but how we equip youth, teens, parents, caregivers, educators, and platforms to make that experience safer.
A major concern we have with 18+ age gates is the verification process. To enforce them, platforms need photo IDs, biometric scans, or use third-party services such as “Yoti” or “Incode” just to name two. While marketed as secure, we guarantee these companies create tempting targets for hackers and even hostile state actors.
We’ve already seen how vulnerable supposedly “gold-standard” systems can be:
UK Ministry of Defence Breach: Data from 100 British officials, including members of special forces and MI6, was exposed, endangering thousands of Afghans BBC report. (1)
Canada Revenue Agency Breach: Sensitive taxpayer information was leaked in a breach documented by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. (2) This is only one of several major cyber privacy breaches of big companies in Canada (3)
If major government agencies and large multi-million dollar companies can be compromised, third party age verification databases are no exception. That doesn’t mean age verification should be dismissed outright, there are clear cases, such as access to pornography sites, where it plays a necessary role in protecting young people. However, what it does mean is that any solution must be designed in a way that protects privacy as much as it enforces restrictions. Age verification should not come at the cost of creating massive databases of personal information no matter what the age, which could be vulnerable to misuse or breach. Instead, the focus needs to be on privacy preserving approaches that strike a balance between safeguarding youth and respecting the rights of all internet users.
Some people argue that age verification is nothing new, you already have to show ID to buy alcohol, cigarettes, vapes, when entering a bar, or if a police officer pulls you over while driving. However, here’s the critical difference, in those cases your ID is reviewed by a human being, face to face, and then returned to you, there is no permanent digital record created. Digital age verification, on the other hand, often requires scanning, transmitting, or storing sensitive personal information. That shift, from a momentary human check to a digitized recorded transaction, introduces significant privacy and security vulnerability and concerns to both teens and adults.
So where does that leave us? Here at the White Hatter we believe a middle ground is possible:
Parental Consent Matters: Parents already guide their child’s participation in high-risk activities. Extending this principle to online life recognizes family decision making.
Safety-by-Design: Platforms must reduce harm through strong privacy defaults, content moderation, and limits on manipulative algorithms. This needs to be legislated into law! We can no longer allow these companies to police themselves.
Parent Education: Not all parents feel equipped to guide their child online. Governments and schools should invest in digital literacy resources to close that gap. We also believe that if a parent wants their child to have access to technology in the classroom, then they should be “required” to attend a parent digital literacy and internet safety presentation. If they don’t attend, then their child does not get access to technology or the internet while at school.
Social media is not risk-free, but neither are many activities we already allow teens to undertake with parental consent and involvement. If a 16 year-old can hold a rifle, fly a plane, drive a car, have consensual sex, consent to or deny medical treatment, or enlist in military service, it is inconsistent to suggest that logging into Instagram or TikTok should require stricter controls than these potentially life altering choices.
We are already seeing examples from countries that have enacted strict age gating laws where both teens and adults are bypassing these systems using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) or other creative workarounds. (4) For many teens, figuring out how to get around a digital barrier is less of a roadblock and more of a challenge to be solved. The result is that these laws often fail to keep young people offline, while driving them to use tools that may expose them to greater risks in the process.
Some policymakers, and special interest groups, who support the 18+ years age gate are now floating the idea of banning VPNs altogether to cut off this workaround. (5) However, such an approach creates an entirely new set of problems. Millions of adults rely on VPNs as a basic privacy safeguard, especially when using public or open Wi-Fi networks in airports, coffee shops, or hotels. Eliminating this option would leave everyday citizens more vulnerable to data theft, surveillance, and cybercrime. In other words, the attempt to stop a teenager from logging into Instagram via the use of a VPN could come at the cost of undermining the digital privacy and safety of everyone.
Another reality, in some countries, such as Australia, research has shown that more than 80% of parents and caregivers with children under 13 have created social media accounts and then given their child access to these accounts. (6) We have anecdotally seen this in Canada as well. While the intention is often innocent, such as wanting their child to connect with friends or not feel left out, the unintended consequence can be far more serious.
By signing up under the parent or caregiver’s details, the platform recognizes the account holder as an adult. That means the child is not placed into youth or “under-13” content filters but is instead treated as if they are of full age. The result is that the child may be exposed to adult level material, targeted advertising, and content algorithms never intended for them. In effect, the parent’s attempt to bypass the system doesn’t just bend the rules; it removes critical safeguards that are in place to protect younger users.
When families feel pressured to work around rules, whether to avoid social stigma or simply to keep the peace at home, it can put children at greater risk. It’s another reason why conversations about age gates need to be more than just about restrictions. They must also address education for parents, accountability for platforms, and realistic pathways for youth participation that do not push families into unsafe workarounds.
Adding to the concern is the way liability is shifting. Social media platforms that outsource their age-verification processes to third-party vendors are essentially insulating themselves from responsibility. If a 14-year-old slips through the age gating system, the platform can argue, “It’s not our fault. The verification company approved their access. We met our legal obligation.” This dynamic creates a troubling accountability gap. Platforms benefit from young users being online, but when the system fails, the burden falls on outside contractors rather than the companies profiting from youth engagement.
At the end of the day, age-gating laws without meaningful enforcement and without shared accountability risk becoming little more than an illusion of protection, but hey, it looks good from a political standpoint. Instead of doubling down on bans that erode adult privacy or passing the buck to third parties, the focus should be legislation that places a legal responsibility on these companies to build “safety by design” features directly into platforms, empowering parents with choices, and strengthening digital literacy for families. That combination addresses the root issues far more effectively than chasing teens around digital fences they will inevitably learn to climb over.
To protect children online is a noble cause, but legislation that does so at the expense of everyone else doesn’t strike a fair balance. Setting a hard age gate at 18 may appear protective, but it ignores the reality that governments already allow minors to engage in activities with far greater risks, often with parental consent, and sometimes without it. Creating laws that require every adult to hand over sensitive personal data for digital age checks not only erodes privacy, but also risks exposing millions to data breaches and surveillance. Worse still, these restrictions rarely succeed in keeping teens offline. Instead, they push young people toward workarounds like VPNs, often removing safeguards in the process.
A more balanced approach would recognize the role of parents in guiding readiness, hold platforms legally accountable for safety-by-design features, and invest in digital literacy education. Protecting children online should never mean sacrificing the rights, security, and privacy of the broader population, including teens themselves.
The debate should not be framed as the binary of “total ban until 18” versus “no protections at all.” Instead, it should be about balance, empowering parents, requiring safety by design from platforms, and protecting privacy in the process. This path respects family judgment, addresses legitimate concerns about online harm, holds social media companies accountable, and avoids replacing one set of risks with another.
There will be those who may point to this article as their proof that The White Hatter does not really supports protecting youth and teens. That is absolutely incorrect. Darren, the founder of The White Hatter, spent 30 years in law enforcement, dedicating his career to safeguarding children, teens, adults, and the most vulnerable in the community. That commitment did not end with retirement. Through The White Hatter, he and the team continue to protect by educating, equipping, and empowering families with facts, not fear.
However, there is a critical difference between protection and prohibition. True protection comes from fostering digital literacy, resilience, and informed decision making, not from an absolutism philosophy of blanket bans or restrictions that deny young people the opportunity to learn how to navigate their online world safely. For this reason, we refuse to use youth and teens as the political spearhead for advancing agendas that often have less to do with their best interests, and more to do with ideology and politics.
At The White Hatter, our mission remains clear, to support the safety and well being of youth and teens through balanced, research-informed approaches that respect their rights, recognize their capabilities, and prepare them for the realities of an onlife world.
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References:
