Access Denied: How Age Rules Could Reshape The Internet For Everyone

By the end of 2025, Australians may be among the first in the Western world to experience the full brunt of internet access being gated not just by age, but by identity--possibly even by ideology.

On the surface, Australia's new online safety code seems commendable. Spearheaded by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, the code demands search engines like Google and Bing verify the age of their users. The stated goal? Protect children from accessing pornography, violent content, and self-harm material online. 

But beneath the surface of child safety lies a digital fault line--one that threatens to split the internet as we know it into tightly regulated access zones based on biometrics, political views, and even religious beliefs.

That's the first critical question. The code is deliberately vague on the technical details, but suggestions include using facial recognition technology or requiring government-issued ID. Both methods come with serious consequences for privacy. Facial recognition--already controversial for its surveillance implications--could become mandatory for something as basic as using Google. That sets a dangerous precedent.

The Australian government's own trials of such tools have shown mixed results, with concerns over accuracy and effectiveness. And yet, the code presses forward, with major tech giants like Google, Meta, and Microsoft supporting it through their industry association. Why? Likely because this level of control over user identity also gives them more data--and more power.

While the public justification centers on protecting children, the reach of this code affects everyone. All account holders--young and old--will now be subject to age assurance. In practice, this could mean being regularly logged out and forced to re-verify your age across multiple devices. It might even mean the end of anonymous or incognito searches.

And it won't stop there. Once you can verify age, you can verify identity. And once you verify identity, you can control access--not just to content, but to the internet itself.

This is where the most chilling possibilities emerge. What happens when the definition of "harmful content" expands? Already, we've seen conservative voices throttled or banned from major platforms for views that don't align with progressive ideologies. Will opposing transgender treatments for minors be flagged as "hate"? Will quoting Bible verses about sexual morality lead to a loss of internet access?

The eSafety Commissioner's office has shown a willingness to interpret "harm" broadly. And under the new system, someone's digital footprint could be used not only to monitor what they post--but to determine whether they should be allowed to log on at all.

This isn't hypothetical. In 2023, UN agencies began pushing for a universal digital ID system linked to biometric data. The goal? To verify who is accessing online platforms and ensure users are "accountable" for what they say. The World Economic Forum has also endorsed "digital trust frameworks" that could include reputation scores based on online behavior.

In other words, we're approaching a world where you don't just need permission to speak--you need permission to exist online.

Australia is becoming the testbed for this new model of digital governance. If it succeeds--or if people accept it without resistance--it's likely to spread to other Western nations.

Today it's age verification for pornography. Tomorrow it might be ideological screening for social media, email, or even banking access. Your ability to participate in modern life could be one AI-generated "violation" away from being revoked.

In the name of safety, we are building a system that could one day determine who gets to access the global public square. And while the architects of these systems promise they're protecting the vulnerable, the deeper threat may be to free expression, religious liberty, and the idea that the internet belongs to everyone--not just to those who pass the digital loyalty test.

We can all agree that children need protection. But the tools being proposed go far beyond reasonable parental controls. They invite surveillance, censorship, and control over the most basic of rights--access to information and the ability to speak freely.

Christians, conservatives, and anyone who holds countercultural convictions should be especially alert. Once these systems are built, they can be turned against any group the government or corporate overseers decide is dangerous. And history shows that standards of "dangerous speech" can shift with frightening speed.

If identity becomes the new key to the internet, then the next great digital debate won't be about content moderation--it will be about access control. Who decides who gets a key? And who gets locked out?

Australia may be the first to try this experiment, but the consequences will be global.