Canem Malum,

The YouTube age-gating you describe has been around for years - long before this current legislation. It wasn’t predicting laws, it was reacting to them.

YouTube (and its parent Google) have been fined repeatedly in the US and EU for breaching child protection laws. That’s why they rolled out “confirm your age” screens - it’s liability management, not prophecy.

And it’s worth drawing a line here. A platform policy =/= government legislation. YouTube tightened its own rules under pressure from regulators around the world. That doesn’t make it part of a global “Woke Marxist” conspiracy - it makes it a corporation doing whatever it takes to avoid another billion-dollar fine.

Finally, let’s be honest: if YouTube didn’t implement any age gates, the same critics would be accusing them of flooding kids with porn and violence. Platforms can’t win - and that doesn’t automatically mean it’s some covert censorship project. Sometimes it’s just the messy middle ground of child safety, liability, and PR.

And as for throwing “Woke Marxist” into every complaint - it doesn’t make the point stronger. It just makes what could be a serious civil liberties discussion sound like a parody of itself.
_____

ttbn,

How exactly are childcare centres supposed to brainwash children? And with little more than nap mats and picture books at that?

Sounds as miraculous as the universities' ability to brainwash their students, while simultaneously teaching them how to assess claims critically - and even testing their ability to apply these skills.

Anyway... since it sounds like you have the evidence of foul play that mhaze doesn't, perhaps you could help him out and share it with us all?

"The FSU has ferreted out information", ttbn did they use a Ouija board, or did they rely on their stock standard Crystal ball?

Nah ttbn, its not the Hitler Youth for you, more like the Volkssturm.

Kudos Kid, when are you going to give up claiming everything you don't agree with is the work of the Woke Marxist!

"preyed on by paedophiles", What's this! has the conservative Catholic Church taken over the pre-schools,with an Archy Pell lurking in every one

Hi John Daysh
"...but to claim that censoring us was the primary goal from the outset is next-level crazy."

Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
I tend to stand with the others on this.

Whats needed is a FOI request to see data on the exact content that has been targeted for removal on social media.
Is it largely content inappropriate for kids, or something other than that?
Is what they are currently removing consistent with the reasons given for censorship?

Both sides may have their own quiet reasons 'other than kids' for supporting censorship.
The left may fear the rise of populist leaders, or the right openly questioning their progressive agendas.
The right may fear anything anti-Semitic and the promotion of progressive agendas.
Beyond that, wars are on the horizon, and the information war for the people must be shaped.

Armchair Critic,

Everyone faces hardship, yes, but let’s not pretend all discrimination is created equal. It's frustrating to be judged superficially when applying for a job, but it’s not the same as being systematically denied fundamental needs.

That’s the difference between everyday misfortune and structural inequality.

You mention quotas and suggest they disadvantage "straight white males." But for most of modern history, being a straight white male was the quota. It’s only when the playing field starts to level that some interpret fairness as an attack. In reality, quotas aim to counteract unconscious bias and open doors previously closed. Successful applicants still need to be unqualified, though.

On the surface, DEI just looks like another form of discrimination - only in the other direction. I get that. However, DEI measures:

- are a bias that we're actually conscious and in control of.
- surface overlooked talent.
- promote productivity, creativity and profitability.
- and most importantly, they aim to ultimately render quotas unnecessary and naturally render themselves increasingly obesolete over time as biases fade (whereas unconscious biases are self-perpetuating).

Inclusion doesn’t cause disunity. Exclusion does. If the presence of different people - culturally, sexually, religiously - feels threatening, the problem isn't diversity. It’s fragility. Unity doesn’t require uniformity. It requires maturity - the ability to coexist with those who aren’t just like us.

Regarding religion, yes, there are conflicts between some views and LGBT rights. That’s why we differentiate between personal belief and public responsibility. We’re free to hold any religious beliefs we like, but that doesn't mean we should have the right to impose them on others in shared spaces.

As for free speech, being expected to not hurt others or incite division isn’t censorship - it’s civilisation. Expecting people to moderate their words in the public square isn’t about silencing them, it’s about choosing to live in a society where dignity and peace matter more some boofhead's freedom to announce his ignorance to the world.

You say you want unity, but it can only start with inclusion. That should actually be quite obvious, when you think about it.

Damnit, wrong thread. Sorry. I'll post in the correct thread.

Armchair Critic,

FOI requests are fine, and transparency is always good, but let’s be clear: Kirkham never actually explains how this is censorship. He just drops the word in his opening line, then spends the rest of the article listing technical failings.

If you’re going to call protecting children "censorship," you need to show how it silences everyone else. He doesn’t.

//Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.//

That might apply to religion, but with conspiracy theories it’s the opposite - the truth is almost always more boring. People are too selfish to devote their lives to a grand plot, and far too disorganised to pull one off without leaving evidence behind.

If you went into politics, I suspect you’d find not a secret cabal, but a bunch of people just in it for themselves, watching the clock and thinking about the weekend.

Furthermore, why would politicians deliberately ruin the country their kids will inherit, just for a fleeting tactical gain? Then there's the 'risk vs reward' imbalance - the risk of being exposed in a grand censorship scheme (career destroyed, possible prison) massively outweighs the tiny political "advantage" of keeping a few critics off social media.

Conspiracy theories like this collapse under their own weight.

And the idea that "both sides secretly want censorship" is just speculation - a placeholder you can use to explain away anything. It doesn’t fit reality: if conservatives really wanted censorship, wouldn’t they be championing these systems instead of attacking them as pseudoscience?

What we’re actually seeing here is negative partisanship: the right opposes the policy mainly because the left supports it, or because it’s the Albanese government proposing it.

The right are quick to campaign for the removal of LGBT literature from school library shelves in the name of protecting children, but a method of protecting them from developmentally harmful online platforms that won't even alienate entire minorities in the process?

Not on your life!

At least not if Labor's proposing it, anyway.