You may never have seriously considered it, but more and more governments, companies, and cybersecurity experts are asking the same question: is the internet as we know it still viable without real identity verification?
Australia’s new legislation, which bans social media use for minors under 16, has reignited a debate that had been quietly building for years—and one that, in 2026, can no longer be ignored.
Australia has effectively become a real-world laboratory. It is the first country to implement such a measure, and everyone is watching closely: to see whether it truly protects minors, whether it creates unintended side effects, or whether it simply shifts the problem instead of solving it. And you, as an internet user, are part of this debate too—even if you’re not always aware of it.
At TecnetOne, we believe this is not just a legal or technological issue, but a deeper conversation about how you want to live and interact in the digital world.
Australia’s law is based on a legitimate concern: the risks children and teenagers face on social media. Harassment, harmful content, manipulation, scams—these are real and well-documented threats. But banning access until age 16 raises an uncomfortable question: what magically changes when someone turns that age?
The risks don’t disappear. Abuse doesn’t suddenly become acceptable. Disinformation doesn’t vanish. Harassment doesn’t stop. The only change is an arbitrary line that says before this age, you’re protected; after it, you’re on your own. That makes it clear the real issue isn’t age, but how the internet itself works.
History shows that bans rarely eliminate behavior—they often make it more attractive. Just like censored songs once became more popular, pushing minors toward less regulated platforms may actually increase risk rather than reduce it.
At the same time, many countries are pushing laws to restrict access to adult content through age verification. And here another dilemma emerges: how do you verify age without invading privacy?
Some solutions analyze facial features in real time. Others require official documents or financial data. All of them share one thing in common: they collect sensitive personal information. That raises new concerns around data storage, misuse, and potential breaches.
Add to this the unstoppable growth of phishing, romance scams, financial fraud, and identity impersonation, and one question becomes unavoidable:
is the current digital services model still sustainable?
Read more: 10 Tips to Prevent Digital Identity Theft
Thirty years ago, if someone had told you that you’d carry a device in your pocket capable of connecting you to anyone on the planet—to work, shop, entertain yourself, and communicate instantly—you probably would have been amazed.
But no one warned you about the other side of the deal:
Had all of that been included in the original promise, you might have thought twice.
We often assume online abuse comes from foreign bots, organized groups, or distant actors. But that’s not always true. Recent investigations—such as one by the BBC—showed that in just one weekend, thousands of extremely abusive messages were posted against professional league players and coaches: death threats, sexual violence, and personal attacks.
The root cause is simple: there is no real identification. Creating an account is trivial. Using a VPN makes tracing nearly impossible. And consequences, in most cases, never arrive.
This is where absolute anonymity stops being about freedom and starts becoming impunity.
Today, you can create accounts with fake names, invented data, and zero verification. This has always been part of the internet’s spirit—but it has also become the perfect breeding ground for large-scale abuse.
Platforms resist adding barriers because they:
But that leads to the real question: has the time come to accept that the internet needs verified users?
This isn’t about forcing a single model. It’s about offering choice.
Imagine being able to choose not to see content, messages, or interactions from unverified users. Your online experience would change dramatically: less noise, less abuse, fewer fraud attempts.
Public figures, athletes, and journalists could use social networks without facing constant waves of hate. And if a verified user crossed a serious line, there would be real consequences—because their identity would be known.
For minors, limiting interactions to verified users alone could eliminate a large portion of today’s risks. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it would follow the 80/20 rule: reducing most problems, even if not all of them.
This idea doesn’t stop at social networks. Think about email. You already have filters for newsletters and promotions. What if there were another one—for unverified senders?
That alone could drastically reduce:
Yes, criminals could still compromise verified accounts. But even then, the cost of attacking would rise significantly. And in cybersecurity, increasing attack cost often deters many threats.
One key concern often misunderstood is this: verification does not equal public exposure.
For example, in a dating app:
The difference is accountability. If abuse or fraud occurs, the platform knows who is behind it and can cooperate with authorities. Free expression doesn’t disappear—impunity does.
You might also be interested in: Identity Dark Matter: The Invisible Side of Digital Identity
Moving toward an internet that distinguishes between verified and unverified users would be a massive change. There would be criticism around free speech. Some companies would see growth metrics affected. Even valuations could shift.
But verification doesn’t silence—it empowers choice.
Choice over who you listen to.
Choice over who you interact with.
Choice over a healthier digital environment.
What is clear is that current solutions aren’t working:
Banning without redesigning the model only moves the problem—and often makes it worse.
The question is no longer whether identity verification has downsides. It does.
The real question is: is it sustainable to continue as we are?
At TecnetOne, we believe the future of the internet lies in finding a balance between privacy, freedom, and responsibility. This isn’t about eliminating anonymity entirely—it’s about introducing mechanisms that reduce abuse without destroying the digital essence.
2026 may not be the year of a definitive shift, but it is clearly the year when this debate can no longer be ignored. Because the internet you have today is the result of past decisions—and the one you’ll have tomorrow depends on the choices we start making now.