>>11340900
Adding to what >>11340907 said, it's not just social media sites. Effectively any website where users can upload pictures (like a forum where people talk about cars) has to comply with this new law. The idea being a user may upload inappropriate adult content, and therefore a kid might see it. The short of it is, if websites don't comply with these incredibly intrusive legal demands, the UK government will try to sue them into oblivion. EDIT: it actually gets worse than that. If you don't comply with the UK governments demands, not only will they try to sue you, but the government itself will block UK users from accessing your website.
>>11340916
In a perfect world, yes. That's precisely what would happen. In fact, in the 90's and 2000's, that's exactly what did happen. Boomer parents that knew nothing about technology would advise their kids never to put personal info on the Internet, and not to trust anyone on the Internet. Sure, kids today can access the Internet far easier than kids from 20 years ago (thanks to smartphones and universal high speed Internet), but it's still very possible to limit your kids access. Problem is parents today are so stupid they don't know how to block websites on a router level, or introduce child safety measures on phones. This shit takes 5 minutes to do (4 minutes to read, 1 minute to implement) and yet parents are still too lazy to do it. Hopefully, like prohibition in the States, people realize how utterly fucking retarded this level of overreach is.