- The federal government banned YouTube for under-16s, however left porn websites open.
- Julie Inman Grant leads a crackdown that swaps freedom for management.
- Youngsters lose a key house to create, share, and be taught on-line.
- Age checks are only a step in direction of mass digital surveillance.
- This coverage isn’t about security; it’s about energy.
By GEORGE CHRISTENSEN
SO the Albanese authorities has added YouTube to its under-16 social media ban, reversing its earlier choice and caving to the bureaucratic campaign led by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. Their rationale? A obscure and unproven declare that YouTube poses “algorithmic harms” to youngsters.
That is coming from Julie Inman Grant, a former Microsoft lobbyist turned digital nanny who has develop into infamous for demanding mass content material removals and pushing tech insurance policies she clearly doesn’t perceive. Her “options” persistently commerce freedom for bureaucratic management, and he or she has made a profession out of turning concern into authority.
Let’s be clear. Social media overexposure is a authentic concern. However policing display time is just not the job of presidency, it’s the job of oldsters. And the extra we depend on state intervention to lift our children, the extra we find yourself with precisely what the system needs: a technology of woke, screen-addicted, authority-worshipping ideologues.
And right here’s what they gained’t admit. This doesn’t simply ban consumption, it bans creation. Younger Australians constructing channels, sharing artwork, posting music, reviewing books, all of that’s gone. The ban isn’t defending children; it’s erasing their voices and gutting a large artistic outlet.
And whereas YouTube now faces age verification, websites like YouPorn, PornHub, and each degenerate nook of the open internet stay vast open to minors. That’s not a toddler security coverage. That’s political theatre. Truly, it’s worse than that; it’s a smokescreen for censorship and surveillance. If this have been actually about defending youngsters, Albanese can be cracking down on porn first, not instructional movies and music channels.
And whereas the federal government insists children can nonetheless view movies whereas “logged out,” that strips away the very security instruments they declare to care about. No parental controls, no watch historical past, no filters. It’s a half-baked workaround that really makes issues much less protected whereas giving politicians cowl.
However that’s not the actual agenda, is it? What we’re staring down is a future the place watching a how-to video on fixing a leaky faucet would require the identical ID scrutiny as boarding a home flight. Scan your face to look at cat movies? That’s not a punchline anymore. It’s coverage in progress.
This ban isn’t about conserving children protected. It’s about laying the groundwork for censorship and surveillance throughout each nook of the web. Immediately it’s “age verification.” Tomorrow it’s biometric logins. After that, it’s the full de-anonymisation of each on-line account in Australia.
For those who suppose that’s far-fetched, have a look at the UK. Since they rolled out related legal guidelines, entry to political commentary outdoors the mainstream now typically requires ID. Wish to watch a podcast criticising authorities COVID coverage? You’ll have to register. Wish to view a video questioning the gender agenda in colleges? Welcome to the nationwide database, comrade.
And don’t suppose it ends there.
That when-anonymous X account of yours, the one the place you posted, “Males can’t be girls”? Quickly sufficient, that will probably be tied on to your ID, your location, and your IP handle. When the thought police come knocking at your door, you gained’t be shocked. You’ll bear in mind today. The day they instructed you it was about “defending the youngsters.”
It’s not about safety. It’s about energy.
We’re sleepwalking right into a future the place free speech is licensed, the place looking the web requires a permission slip, and the place your digital fingerprints are stamped on every part you learn, say, or share.
Nonetheless suppose it’s about social media? Right here’s what must occur. Mother and father should step up. We have to cease outsourcing morality and self-discipline to the identical authorities that may’t outline a girl. We should demand freedom for households, privateness for residents, and accountability for this creeping surveillance state masquerading as public security.
Albanese tried to promote this coverage flanked by grieving dad and mom, a uncooked emotional spectacle staged to protect his authorities from criticism. However exploiting heartbreak doesn’t make dangerous legislation righteous. It simply makes it manipulative. The federal government doesn’t get to determine what your loved ones watches.
As communications tutorial Catherine Jane Archer warned, “Younger folks will probably be lower off from an enormous artistic outlet, and from social and political commentary.” The ban doesn’t simply muzzle poisonous content material. It muzzles all content material. Each teen with a guitar, a Bible, or a political opinion simply obtained silenced by Canberra.
And it’s not even constant. The federal government’s personal analysis reveals grooming, harassment, and image-based abuse are extra frequent on platforms like Snapchat, but these providers get a free move. Why? As a result of this isn’t about threat. It’s about narrative management.
Stand your floor. Resist the ID regime and surveillance state as a lot as you possibly can. And guardian like your baby’s freedom is dependent upon it, as a result of it does.
Till subsequent time, God bless you, your loved ones and nation.
Nation First, by George Christensen is a reader-supported publication. To obtain new posts and assist my work, think about changing into a free or paid subscriber. Improve to paid
