Technology is moving too fast for out-of-touch lawmakers to keep up.
Yes, and no.
Yes, these bans can be defeated.
But kids are not very tech savvy. Oh, sure they play all day on their toys. But when it comes to nuts and bolts shit, the percentage of them who have a clue is pretty damned low. Just because you USE tech, doesn't mean you understand all of the nuances enough of it to defeat a general ban.
My sample size for that statement is about 1000 people who use social media, most of whom twit or face ONLY because their peers do. Not because the content itself is much of a draw. And all of them are actually over 18 (since I don't belong to any groups that accept anyone YOUNGER).
Then again, a "ban" wasn't really the point. The point is to reduce the number of minors accessing these sites. THAT, it will do, and probably quite successfully. Yes, you'll get savants helping their peers defeat it, but that won't likely be the norm. Reduction of traffic by minors to these sites is probably going to be significant in the UK, even if it's only cut in half.
Some folks here seem to think that if you don't fully eliminate the problem, it's not worth trying.
How many kids saved from the toxic influences of all of those site does it take for it to be worth it? Even if it's just a minor percent of them, IMHO, that's better than nothing.
Life without any of the listed websites is perfectly livable. And it's likely to be better (or at least a lot less toxic) without them.
ETA:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has
said that age-verification requirements harm privacy by requiring more collection of personal information from users of all ages. Banning social media also prevents kids from accessing useful content, the group said.
Well, shit, shoulda read further. This isn't the way to deal with the issue.
The idea has merit. The methodology sucks, though.