YouTube to be included in Australia's social media ban for children under 16

Parent vs State Responsibility

• Strong split between those who see this as classic “nanny state” overreach and those who argue parents can’t realistically counter Big Tech alone.
• One side: it is fundamentally parents’ job to limit YouTube/social media, like drugs, alcohol or street dangers; outsourcing this to distant politicians is framed as moral abdication.
• Other side: platforms are engineered to be addictive by huge corporations; expecting individual parents to fight that (or deny kids phones without severe social costs) is unrealistic, so collective regulation is justified.
• Historical point: governments have long intervened “for children” (child labor, abuse laws); this is not new.

Perceived Harms of YouTube and Social Media

• YouTube, especially Shorts, is repeatedly described as “brain rot”, highly addictive, and particularly bad for undeveloped self-control in children.
• Concerns about AI-generated slop, parasocial grooming, exposure to porn/soft-porn, and algorithmic radicalization are common.
• Some analogize social media to drugs or gambling in terms of engineered compulsion.
• Others argue this is just the latest in a long line of moral panics (books, TV, music, games).

Support for Bans and Child-Protection Measures

• Supporters see this as a necessary experiment after platforms and parents have “dropped the ball”.
• They emphasize grooming, bullying, and easy access to porn and violent/sexualized media; argue that social media companies profit from children’s attention and have resisted client-side protections (e.g., CSAM scanning backlash).
• Some want stronger regulation of platforms’ behavior toward minors (e.g., banning Shorts for kids) rather than broad access bans.

Civil Liberties, Censorship, and Digital ID Concerns

• Many suspect the child-safety framing masks a broader push toward Chinese-style control: digital ID, age-verification for all internet use, and centralized control of public discourse.
• Australia’s move is linked rhetorically to the UK Online Safety Act and EU digital wallet/age-verification work; critics see coordinated Western erosion of anonymity and free expression.
• Others dismiss this as conspiracy thinking, arguing “they” (a unified cabal) don’t exist and that tech platforms already collect more data than governments.
• Some highlight specific UK provisions enabling the government to steer “disinformation” responses as evidence of mission creep.

Value of YouTube and Alternatives to Bans

• Many stress YouTube’s huge upside: lectures, DIY, repair, fitness, engineering, hobbies; they’d be reluctant to deny school-age children all access.
• Some say quality is a small percentage but enormous in absolute terms; with curation and careful interaction, recommendations can stay high-quality for adults.
• Strong consensus that YouTube’s parental controls are inadequate; requested features include: disabling Shorts per account, robust kids’ profiles, and transparent viewing logs.
• Proposals include device-level “child mode” enforced by OS, government- or community-curated whitelists of educational channels, or stronger platform obligations not to target or profile minors.
• Others argue these should remain tools for parents, not state-run whitelists, to avoid normalizing censorship and mass surveillance.

Broader Cultural and Media Panics

• Thread widens to games, porn on Steam/GOG, and “sexualization” in media. Some view modern games as a porn gateway and want to steer children to other hobbies.
• Counterarguments: games (like books or chess) are a legitimate leisure activity; the real issue is time balance and parental limits, not inherent corruption.
• Several commenters see recurring “protect the children” cycles (music in the 80s, movies, TV, games, now social media) that often result in overbroad restrictions and expanded state power.