The UK has now taken up the censorship of what under-16s can see on the internet.

Andrew Tettenborn - ‘The social media ban is stupid and unenforceable’ - writes that it is a “bad idea”. The responsibility for what children read and see should lie squarely with the parents.

Interest in the authoritarian law concerning internet censorship in Australia has died down, as most affronts to democracy usually do, as people get bored, or stick their heads back in the sand to protect themselves from being hassled, called names, and generally harassed by hard left activists and media.

Not-very-democratic and majority Islamic Malaysia is the only other country to adopt censorship of some channels, while other Western countries have introduced legislation or are thinking about it. They might or might not go the full hog, depending on their politicians and whether or not they are like the increasingly authoritarian Labor party of Australia, or the Labour party of the UK.

Tettenborn's arguments against government interference in child-raising are much the same as those tendered here in Australia; and like in Australia they will be suppressed, and another Western country of people will lose a bit more of the democracy they once enjoyed. Democracy that could be gone altogether by the time under-16s reach adulthood.

Parents who can't control their children or, as in a small minority of cases, have ‘at risk’ children, would have been better served if governments had spent the time and money to be Big Brother on insisting that all devices had on/off switch fitted that only the owner of the internet account could control, as suggested by the author.

But, of course, it's all about control these days: replace the population with grateful, pliable immigrants, and get the kids into “early learning” (used to be kindy)” as young as possible.

Interfering in the role of parents (part and parcel of Socialism whittling away at the family) has nothing to do with the safety of children. It is all about control and grooming children to be good little, obedient, servants of Socialism.

of course, after covering and being complicit for muslim rape gangs for years the virtue signallers need to pretend, they care for the young ones. The same Pollies allow blokes in dresses in girls changerooms and drag queens to groom kids in libraries.

The ban has “not been highly successful”. Studies show that 60-70% are still accessing restricted platforms. Knowledgeable kids have not been stopped. They are, apparently, aided by VPNs and lying about their ages somehow.

There has been no “discernible drop” in complaints about bullying or abuse.

Another big, expensive flop for the uniparty, both big on censorship and control.

Some parents and “educators” see some improvements, but those people could be just saying that to cover up the failure of their pet project, and deny that kids are more tech-savvy than they are. 12 and 13 year-olds are bragging that, after 6 months, they are still doing what they have always done online.

The esafety Commissioner's latest ‘compliance update’ showed that 70% of parents reported that their kids still had active media accounts.

Either the face recognition doesn't work, or kids are using someone else's face. One claimed to have used a photo of Michael Jackson.

I was confronted with a YouTube request for identity some time ago. It didn't work, and life went on as usual.

CEO of ‘Age Check Certification Scheme’, Tony Allen, admits that no form of age verification is foolproof.

Another well-deserved flop for the Albanese authoritarian government, that doesn't talk about it any more; neither do we hear anything from the very expensive eCommissioner these days.

One Nation opposes the under 16s media ban, preferring parent responsibility, not the outsourcing of parenting to unelected bureaucrats like the eCommissioner.

"They are, apparently, aided by VPNs and lying about their ages somehow."

Well the UK government is going to also start restrictions on VPNs.

These policies only seem to be a failure if you misunderstand their intent. Saving the children is merely the excuse. The real purpose is to eliminate anonymity on the WWW. This is particularly problematic in the UK since they are now the world leader in prosecutions for online comment.

They are completely incapable of stopping Muslim men from raping and enslaving white working class kids, but they sure as hell intend to stop people talking about it or sharing information about it.

The real issue here can be discerned from what the UK government plans on restricting. All sorts of social media websites are being targeted, especially X. But Bluesky, the left-wing competitor for X, is untouched.
Bluesky is full of pedophile comment, but that, it seems is fine, since they also tow the ideological line preferred by the UK government