Australian readers opening Substack this fall have found a new step inserted between curiosity and the page. Click the wrong post and a full-screen message appears, informing users they “may be asked to verify your age before viewing certain content.”
Due to authoritarian internet laws, reading now comes with paperwork.
Substack says the change is not a philosophical shift but a legal one. The trigger is Australia’s Online “Safety” Act, a regulatory framework that treats written words with the same suspicion once reserved for explicit video.
The law requires platforms to block or filter material deemed age-restricted, even when that material is lawful.
The Online Safety Act hands the eSafety Commissioner broad authority to order platforms to restrict, hide, or remove content considered unsuitable for minors.
The definition of unsuitable is wide enough to cover commentary, essays, or creative writing that falls nowhere near criminal territory.
To comply, Substack now asks some Australian readers to confirm they are over 18. That can mean uploading identity documents or passing through third-party verification services.
Readers who already verified their identity through payment systems might be spared another check, though the underlying system remains the same. Access depends on linking a real person to a specific act of reading.
This marks a shift for a platform built on the idea that subscribing and reading could be done quietly. The act of opening an essay now risks leaving a record that connects identity with interest.
In an October 2025 statement titled Our Position on the Online Safety Act, Substack warned that the law carries “real costs to free expression.”
The company made clear it would follow Australian law, while arguing that mandatory age verification threatens the independence of digital publishing.
This is not the familiar filter used by streaming services or adult entertainment platforms. This is text. Essays. Journalism. Political argument. Material that has long circulated without checkpoints. The same machinery sold as child protection now sits in front of discussions about social issues, politics, or art.
Australian users trying to access posts marked as adult content are met with a demand to confirm their age before proceeding.
The process may be quick, but it requires data exchanges that associate a reader with specific material. Even if those links are temporary, they represent a break from the historical norm of private reading.
For writers and readers who valued Substack as a direct channel, the dynamic has changed. Subscribing is no longer enough. Proof is required. That requirement may not ban content outright, but it introduces friction that discourages engagement with sensitive or controversial topics. It also normalizes the idea that access to writing should depend on disclosing personal identity.
Once such systems exist, expanding them becomes an administrative decision.
Australia is not alone. Similar problems are underway in the United Kingdom and the European Union, where online safety proposals also rely on digital identity frameworks.
The common premise is that anonymous access is a problem to be solved rather than a feature to be preserved.
Substack’s choice reflects the bind facing global platforms. Defy the rules and risk being blocked. Comply and accept the slow reshaping of how people read. For now, Australian readers can still reach their favorite writers, provided they show ID first. The price of admission is proof that you are old enough to read.
