A Response to Misguided Policy Proposals

This is a opinion piece based on a response to an interview aired on The Pat Kenny Show, by Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín, who has made calls for  measures to be put in place to prevent children accessing pornography.

The idea that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should filter content based on the age of the user is often presented as a way to protect minors from harmful online material, is well meaning and I am not criticising the sentiment. However, in practice, such an approach is not only impractical but also technically and logistically impossible. Recent arguments advocating for such measures, like those put forward by Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín, fail to account for the complexities of internet infrastructure and instead propose unrealistic solutions that demonstrate a lack of technical understanding.

The Role of ISPs: A Gateway, Not a Guardian

An ISP’s role is to provide access to the internet—nothing more. It is the digital equivalent of an airport that facilitates travel but has no control over what a passenger does at their destination. Just as an airport cannot track or control a traveler’s behavior once they have reached their holiday spot, an ISP cannot realistically police every website visited by every user based on age.

The Airport Analogy: A Gateway Without Oversight

Airports and ISPs serve a similar function: they provide a means to access a broader world, whether that be a physical destination or the digital landscape. Once a passenger passes through airport security and boards a plane, the airport has no further influence over their activities. Whether they engage in lawful tourism or illegal activities abroad is beyond the airport’s control. Similarly, an ISP simply provides the connection to the internet—it does not monitor, track, or control what users do once they are online.

To demand that ISPs take responsibility for the content accessed by users would be akin to expecting an airport to ensure that no traveler engages in illegal activities once they reach their destination. The logistics of such an expectation are obviously absurd. ISPs, like airports, enable access, but they do not dictate behavior beyond the point of access.

Aontú’s argument presumes that ISPs have the means to track and filter content based on the age of individual users, a notion that disregards the realities of how the internet functions.

The Technical Challenges of Age-Based Filtering

Even if we entertained the idea of ISPs filtering content by age, the technical challenges are staggering:

1. User Identification Issues – Unlike a personal ID at an airport, ISPs do not have a foolproof way of verifying the age of every person using a connection. Devices are shared within households, making it impossible to determine if the person accessing content is a child, a teenager, or an adult.
2. Encrypted Traffic – Much of today’s internet traffic is encrypted (e.g., HTTPS and VPN usage). This means ISPs cannot see the exact content being accessed without intrusive methods, which would violate privacy rights and data protection laws.
3. Dynamic Content and New Websites – The internet is constantly evolving, with new websites appearing daily. Filtering content based on an ever-changing list of restricted sites would be a logistical nightmare.
4. False Positives and Overblocking – Any automated filtering system risks blocking legitimate content, leading to frustrations for users who are unfairly restricted from accessing information they need.

Aontú’s advocacy for government intervention fails to address these challenges, instead placing an impossible burden on ISPs with no feasible solution for enforcement.

The Logistical Nightmare of Content Filtering

Beyond the technical hurdles, enforcing age-based content restrictions presents insurmountable logistical issues:

• Who Defines What is Age-Appropriate? – Standards for age-appropriate content vary across cultures, countries, and even individual households. Expecting ISPs to apply a one-size-fits-all policy is unrealistic.
• Parental Responsibility vs. Corporate Responsibility – Just as an airport does not take parental responsibility for a child traveling with their parents, ISPs should not be tasked with parental control over internet usage. Parents and guardians have far better insight into their child’s maturity level and should be the ones implementing content restrictions using existing tools like parental control software.
• Legal Implications – Enforcing age-based filtering would expose ISPs to legal challenges regarding privacy, censorship, and liability. Holding an ISP accountable for a minor accessing restricted content would be like holding an airline responsible for a traveler’s illegal activities abroad.

Realistic and Workable Approaches

Instead of placing unrealistic burdens on ISPs, practical solutions should be explored that empower parents and users while maintaining internet freedom and privacy. Some viable approaches include:

1. Parental Control Software – Parents can install and configure content filtering tools on individual devices to restrict access to inappropriate material. Many modern operating systems and internet security suites offer customizable parental controls.
2. Device-Level Content Filtering – Routers and network hardware manufacturers provide parental controls that allow users to block certain content categories across an entire home network without ISP intervention.
3. Digital Literacy and Education – Teaching children and teenagers about online safety, responsible browsing, and critical thinking is a more effective long-term solution than attempting to impose blanket restrictions.
4. Website-Based Age Verification – Instead of filtering at the ISP level, website operators dealing with sensitive content should be required to implement robust age-verification measures to restrict access to minors.
5. Government and Industry Collaboration – Policymakers should work with industry leaders, technology companies, and educational institutions to develop standards for age-appropriate online experiences without resorting to excessive censorship or impractical ISP regulations.

Conclusion: A Misplaced Expectation

The expectation that ISPs should be responsible for filtering content based on user age is both impractical and fundamentally flawed. The ISP, like an airport, provides the gateway but does not dictate what happens beyond that point. The responsibility for content consumption lies with users, parents, and guardians, not the infrastructure provider.

Rather than placing an impossible burden on ISPs, efforts should be focused on empowering users with the tools and knowledge to manage their own internet experiences effectively. Arguments such as those put forward by Aontú oversimplify a complex issue and ignore the technical and logistical realities of internet infrastructure. Policymakers must avoid reactionary legislation that places the onus on ISPs instead of fostering effective parental control solutions and digital literacy initiatives.