Why Banning Social Media Won't Protect Kids — Durov

Blocking a website does not make it disappear. It reroutes curiosity. Pavel Durov, Telegram's founder, fired that warning at a proposed UK law that would bar under-16s from social platforms.

Short answer: kids will look for workarounds. Long answer: they'll find VPNs, proxies and shadow channels where moderation is weaker and predators hide behind false names. Durov points to history. When Russia tried to block Telegram, about 95 percent of teens kept using it, simply tunneling through VPNs. Iran saw a similar pattern. Prohibition, he argues, often backfires.

Under the new UK blueprint, anyone on social platforms would need to prove they are over 16 using government ID, facial scans or bank cards. That kind of age verification is invasive. It also creates a database of verified accounts. Durov asks a blunt question: is the goal protecting children or creating a tool that makes it easier to identify and detain people who post politically sensitive content?

Laws that push young users underground expose them to more harm, not less.

There are alternatives that don't rely on broad bans. Parental controls, time limits, supervised accounts and, yes, sometimes taking a device away, are practical measures that give adults tools to manage a child's online life without driving them to unregulated corners of the web. Durov even calls out a familiar scene: handing a tablet to a toddler just to buy a few minutes of quiet. Convenient, but risky when repeated without guardrails.

Think of a blanket ban as closing the front door while leaving the windows open. Enforcement becomes a game of whack-a-mole, and the most tech-savvy — often the kids themselves — will be the least affected. Meanwhile, regulators chase verification systems that bring their own privacy and safety trade-offs.

Whether the UK proceeds with age checks that require ID, biometric scans or card details, the debate raises deeper issues about surveillance, trust and who gets to decide what keeps young people safe online. Policymakers can choose to harden the walls. Or they can hand parents better tools and insist platforms design for safety from the start. Which path will actually protect children from harm?