Mashable71%

Is the UKs age-verification law working? Kinda. 31%

7/15/2026, 9:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 21.6% saturation with 130 hits. Analysis detected 1,339 faulty-reasoning hits from 602 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.7% and a BS Rank of 31% (14,194 of 20,378 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.70% of the article peer group.

Close to a year after the enactment of the UK's age assurance law, the Online Safety Act , Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, has released a report on its progress. 
The Online Safety Act requires robust age checks for sites that have content "restricted to adults," which extends from pornography to non-explicit content like the r/stopsmoking subreddit. 
UK age verification, one year later 
Ofcom has found that these age checks are now being deployed on an "unprecedented scale" across various sectors: porn, social media, dating, and gaming. 
Between July 2025, when the law went into effect, and Jan. 2026, the proportion of children "being asked to prove their age who encountered highly effective age checks" increased from 25 to 43 percent. 
EU plans to restrict social media for kids under 13 
Between July and Dec. last year, 69 million age checks were completed across a sample of 32 services, which Ofcom says is a 23-fold increase on the previous six months. 
According to Ofcom's Children's Passive Online Monitoring study, eight percent of children aged 8 to 14 who participated visited porn providers. 
Half of them only reached sites with age checks in place. 
The majority, 87 percent, of these porn site visits were for under 30 seconds, and 65 percent were for less than 10 seconds. 
Shortcomings of the Online Safety Act 
Ofcom also found that all of the UK's top 10 porn sites, and 64 out of the top 100 most popular porn sites in the country, have installed age assurance as of last month, and 10 have geo-blocked UK users. 
Despite this, though, Ofcom stated that "too many porn sites still don't have age checks in place." 
It's opened 23 investigations into providers of 88 adult services. 
Another result of the report is that children are finding porn sites without age checks via search. 
A third (33 percent) of Google Search results on the first page were porn sites without age checks or geo-blocking, while this was the case for 54 percent of first-page Bing results. 
Ofcom stated that Google and Bing are working with it "to tackle the discoverability of porn sites without age checks via their services," though the Online Safety Act doesn't require search providers to use age assurance to prevent minors from viewing porn. 
The report also stated that over 10 percent of 15 to 17-year-olds accessed three popular dating apps in Dec. 2025, despite age checks, so these services need to ensure their age checks are effective. 
Finally, the report also casts doubt on age-inference methods, which estimate a user's age from their behavior. 
"Our message to social media companies is clear: those which use age inference models to comply with their child protection duties should switch to other methods listed in our guidance as highly effective without delay," Ofcom stated in a press release shared with Mashable. 
This will become increasingly relevant as the UK bans social media for children under 16. 
The UK government is planning to use similar age-assurance methods as the Online Safety Act. 
A recent study on Australia's social media ban found it ineffective, partly because age estimations don't require younger users to undergo additional checks. 
Ofcom states it will deliver an assessment of what "highly effective age checks" will look like to determine someone is over 16 to Parliament by the end of Oct. 
It will also publish a report on app-store-level age verification by Jan. 
2027. 
In addition to the broad social media ban for under-16s, the UK also just announced a social media curfew for teenagers aged 16 and 17. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.1%Mashable: 2.2%Confirmation Bias14.1%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 2.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Mashable: 3.1%Availability Heuristic13.1%This article: 8.5%Mashable: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic8.5%This article: 5.6%Mashable: 0.6%Hindsight Bias5.6%This article: 4.8%Mashable: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 5.7%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 1.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 9.1%Mashable: 0.6%Status Quo Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.5%Mashable: 4.4%Optimism Bias2.5%This article: 13.0%Mashable: 1.2%Pessimism Bias13.0%This article: 9.5%Mashable: 4.7%Negativity Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Mashable: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error7.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Mashable: 4.3%Halo Effect4.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 20.4%Mashable: 1.2%Recency Bias20.4%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.1%Mashable: 3.4%Appeal to Authority9.1%This article: 7.0%Mashable: 1.4%False Dilemma7.0%This article: 2.5%Mashable: 0.5%Slippery Slope2.5%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.8%Mashable: 5.0%Hasty Generalization19.8%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.8%Mashable: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion2.8%This article: 7.3%Mashable: 0.8%Begging the Question7.3%This article: 16.3%Mashable: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.3%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.8%Mashable: 1.6%Anecdotal2.8%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 21.6%Mashable: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.6%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.2%Mashable: 0.1%Middle Ground0.2%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.8%Mashable: 1.3%Unattributed Quote2.8%This article: 10.1%Mashable: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection10.1%This article: 1.2%Mashable: 10.5%Biased Writer Voice1.2%This article: 7.3%Mashable: 2.6%Indoctrination7.3%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 18.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

602 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker50%attributed speech299writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageOfcom • 24 words • 0.0% coverageOfcom • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageOfcom • 30 words • 0.0% coverageOfcom • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageOfcom • 40 words • 0.0% coverageOfcom • 17 words • 100.0% coverageOfcom • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageOfcom • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageOfcom • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageOfcom • 29 words • 0.0% coverageOfcom • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ofcom

96%flagged-word coverage
303 attributed words100% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Quote-first Misdirection+20.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ofcom: 20.1%20.1%Indoctrination+14.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ofcom: 14.5%14.5%Unattributed Quote+5.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ofcom: 5.6%5.6%Biased Writer Voice-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Ofcom: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.