The Albanese government's decision to include YouTube in its under-16 social media ban, set to take effect on December 10, 2025, has sparked fierce debate. Championed by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, the policy is framed as a protective measure against "algorithmic harms" to children. Yet, it conspicuously leaves pornographic websites unregulated, raising questions about its true intent. This selective crackdown aligns with a Leftist agenda to suppress political knowledge and free expression among young Australians, while allowing unfettered access to explicit content. This discussion examines the ban's implications, the hypocrisy of ignoring pornography, and the broader push toward digital surveillance, situating it within a narrative of ideological control.
In July 2025, the Albanese government reversed its initial exemption of YouTube from the under-16 social media ban, following advice from Julie Inman Grant. Her rationale, backed by a survey of 2,600 children aged 10-15, claims that 37% encountered harmful content on YouTube, including misogynistic, violent, or eating disorder-related material. The ban, part of the Online Safety Act 2021, targets platforms like YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and X, requiring age verification to prevent minors from holding accounts, with fines up to $49.5 million for non-compliance.
YouTube's inclusion is justified by its "persuasive design features" like infinite scroll and algorithmic feeds, which Inman Grant argues drive excessive use and exposure to harm. However, the exemption of YouTube Kids, a curated platform, and the ability to view YouTube content in a logged-out state, undermine claims of comprehensive child protection. Without an account, parental controls like content filters are disabled, potentially increasing exposure to unmoderated content, a contradiction that weakens the policy's stated goals.
The most glaring inconsistency is the government's failure to regulate pornographic websites like PornHub and YouPorn, which remain accessible to minors without age verification. If child safety were the priority, these sites, known for hosting explicit content and linked to issues like grooming and sexual extortion, would be the first targets. Inman Grant's silence on this issue is deafening, especially given her aggressive push to include YouTube in the ban. As noted in a Nation First article (see below), "hardcore pornography remains just a click away, no ID required," while YouTube faces scrutiny for "rabbit holes" of political or social commentary. This selective focus suggests a deliberate prioritisation of platforms where ideas, not just images, are shared.
The government's own research highlights that grooming and image-based abuse are more prevalent on platforms like Snapchat, yet these receive less scrutiny than YouTube. This discrepancy fuels speculation that the ban targets platforms fostering political discourse, which could awaken young Australians to alternative viewpoints challenging the Leftist establishment. Pornography, by contrast, is less likely to inspire critical thinking, aligning with a narrative that tolerates its accessibility as a distraction from political engagement; it is a mind-destroying diversion.
The Albanese government's policies, critics argue, reflect a broader Leftist ideology aimed at controlling narratives and stifling dissent. YouTube, with its vast array of educational content, political commentary, and independent voices, is a platform where young people can encounter ideas outside mainstream media. Channels discussing free speech, gender ideology, or government overreach, often labelled "harmful" by regulators, pose a threat to a political class seeking ideological conformity. By banning under-16s from holding YouTube accounts, the government limits their ability to engage with or create such content, effectively silencing a generation's political voice.
This aligns with a pattern of narrative control. The Nation First article warns that age verification is a step toward "de-anonymisation of every online account," citing the UK's experience where access to non-mainstream political content now often requires ID. In Australia, the push for digital ID, as seen in proposed "Britcard" systems, raises fears of a surveillance state where dissent is tracked and penalised. By framing YouTube as a danger while ignoring pornography, the government seeks control over platforms that foster intellectual curiosity, suggesting a calculated effort to keep young Australians politically docile.
At the heart of this policy is Julie Inman Grant, Australia's eSafety Commissioner since 2017. A former Microsoft and Twitter executive, Inman Grant has a history of advocating for tech industry interests before pivoting to regulation. Her tenure has been marked by controversial moves, such as ordering the removal of violent content from X in 2024, sparking a free speech debate with Elon Musk. Critics, including the Daily Declaration, accuse her of overreach, arguing her push for age verification is less about safety and more about consolidating power.
In her June 2025 National Press Club speech, Inman Grant described the ban as a "delay" rather than a prohibition, admitting that age assurance technologies are imperfect and that young people may circumvent restrictions using VPNs. Yet, her insistence on including YouTube, despite its educational value, and her failure to address pornographic sites, undermines her credibility. Her past as a tech lobbyist fuels scepticism that her policies serve corporate or governmental interests rather than public welfare.
The ban's reliance on age verification technologies, such as facial recognition or ID checks, signals a broader agenda of digital surveillance. The government's Age Assurance Technology Trial revealed flaws, with face-scanning tools misidentifying 15-year-olds as adults, yet Inman Grant insists on a "waterfall of tools" to enforce compliance. Industry codes under the Online Safety Act, effective December 2025, will extend age assurance to search engines, app stores, and AI chatbots, requiring account holders under 18 to enable safe search filters.
This infrastructure lays the groundwork for pervasive monitoring. As Nation First warns, "biometric logins" and "de-anonymisation" could tie every online action to an individual's identity, chilling free speech. The UK's experience, where ID is required for political content, serves as a cautionary tale. In Australia, the lack of transparency in the trial's data and the rushed December deadline raise concerns about unchecked power. Shadow Communications Minister Melissa McIntosh has questioned the eSafety Commissioner's authority, warning that requiring adults to log in to browse risks privacy and personal freedoms.
Beyond surveillance, the ban stifles young Australians' creativity. YouTube is a platform where teens share music, art, and commentary, building communities and skills. Communications academic Catherine Jane Archer notes that the ban cuts young people off from "a huge creative outlet, and from social and political commentary." By preventing under-16s from holding accounts, the policy not only limits consumption but also creation, silencing voices like those of young musicians or activists. YouTube's lobbying, supported by creators like the Mik Maks, emphasises the platform's role in education and entertainment, with 84% of teachers using it monthly for learning.
The exemption of YouTube Kids, while practical, doesn't address the loss of interactive features for older children. Meanwhile, platforms like Snapchat, linked to higher risks of grooming, face less scrutiny, suggesting a focus on narrative-heavy platforms rather than actual harm.
The ban shifts responsibility from parents to the state, undermining family autonomy. Inman Grant herself has acknowledged that parents can use tools like content filters to manage YouTube access, yet the policy removes these options by enforcing logouts. Critics argue that policing screen time is a parental duty, not a government mandate. By framing the ban as a moral necessity, Albanese exploits emotional appeals, flanked by grieving parents affected by cyberbullying, while ignoring the root causes of online harm, such as unregulated pornography.
This overreach reflects a broader Leftist tendency to centralise control, with state intervention over individual agency. The Nation First article calls for parents to "stand their ground" and resist the "ID regime," arguing that outsourcing discipline to the government risks raising a generation conditioned to accept authority without question.
To counter this trajectory, several steps are needed:
Prioritise Pornography Regulation: The government must enforce age verification on pornographic websites, addressing a clear source of harm to minors before targeting platforms like YouTube.
Protect Free Speech: Exemptions for educational and creative platforms should be maintained, with clear criteria to avoid narrative-driven censorship. Public consultation, as McIntosh suggests, can ensure transparency.
Empower Parents: Provide resources for parents to manage online access, such as enhanced content filters, rather than mandating state-controlled verification.
Limit Surveillance: Reject biometric and ID-based systems that threaten anonymity. Support decentralised technologies like VPNs to preserve privacy.
Challenge Inman Grant's Authority: Independent oversight of the eSafety Commissioner's powers, as demanded by the opposition, can prevent overreach and ensure accountability.
The Albanese government's YouTube ban, driven by Julie Inman Grant's crusade, is less about child safety and more about suppressing political knowledge and enforcing digital control. By targeting YouTube while ignoring pornography, the policy reveals a Leftist bias toward narrative control, targetting platforms where young Australians might encounter dissenting ideas. The push for age verification lays the groundwork for a surveillance state, threatening free speech and creativity. Parents, not the government, should guide children's online experiences.
https://nationfirst.substack.com/p/youtube-is-too-dangerous-for-kids
"Welcome to Australia, where watching The Wiggles on YouTube is now considered a threat to child safety, but hardcore pornography remains just a click away, no ID required.
The government banned YouTube for under-16s, but left porn sites open.
Julie Inman Grant leads a crackdown that swaps freedom for control.
Kids lose a key space to create, share, and learn online.
Age checks are just a step towards mass digital surveillance.
This policy isn't about safety; it's about power.
This week, the Albanese government added YouTube to its under-16 social media ban, reversing its earlier decision and caving to the bureaucratic crusade led by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. Their rationale? A vague and unproven claim that YouTube poses "algorithmic harms" to children.
This is coming from Julie Inman Grant, a former Microsoft lobbyist turned digital nanny who has become notorious for demanding mass content removals and pushing tech policies she clearly doesn't understand. Her "solutions" consistently trade freedom for bureaucratic control, and she has made a career out of turning fear into authority.
Let's be clear. Social media overexposure is a legitimate concern. But policing screen time is not the job of government, it is the job of parents. And the more we rely on state intervention to raise our kids, the more we end up with exactly what the system wants: a generation of woke, screen-addicted, authority-worshipping ideologues.
And here's what they won't admit. This doesn't just ban consumption, it bans creation. Young Australians building channels, sharing art, posting music, reviewing books, all of that is gone. The ban isn't protecting kids; it is erasing their voices and gutting a massive creative outlet.
And while YouTube now faces age verification, sites like YouPorn, PornHub, and every degenerate corner of the open web remain wide open to minors. That's not a child safety policy. That's political theatre. Actually, it's worse than that; it's a smokescreen for censorship and surveillance. If this were truly about protecting children, Albanese would be cracking down on porn first, not educational videos and music channels.
And while the government insists kids can still view videos while "logged out," that strips away the very safety tools they claim to care about. No parental controls, no watch history, no filters. It's a half-baked workaround that actually makes things less safe while giving politicians cover.
But that's not the real agenda, is it?
What we're staring down is a future where watching a how-to video on fixing a leaky tap will require the same ID scrutiny as boarding a domestic flight. Scan your face to watch cat videos? That's not a punchline anymore. It's policy in progress.
This ban isn't about keeping kids safe. It is about laying the groundwork for censorship and surveillance across every corner of the internet. Today it is "age verification." Tomorrow it is biometric logins. After that, it is the complete de-anonymisation of every online account in Australia.
If you think that's far-fetched, look at the UK. Since they rolled out similar laws, access to political commentary outside the mainstream now often requires ID. Want to watch a podcast criticising government COVID policy? You'll need to sign in. Want to view a video questioning the gender agenda in schools? Welcome to the national database, comrade.
And don't think it ends there.
That once-anonymous X account of yours, the one where you posted, "Men can't be women"? Soon enough, that will be tied directly to your ID, your location, and your IP address. When the thought police come knocking at your door, you won't be shocked. You'll remember this day. The day they told you it was about "protecting the kids."
It's not about protection. It's about power.
We are sleepwalking into a future where free speech is licensed, where browsing the internet requires a permission slip, and where your digital fingerprints are stamped on everything you read, say, or share.
Still think it's about social media?
Here's what needs to happen. Parents must step up. We need to stop outsourcing morality and discipline to the same government that can't define a woman. We must demand freedom for families, privacy for citizens, and accountability for this creeping surveillance state masquerading as public safety.
Albanese tried to sell this policy flanked by grieving parents, a raw emotional spectacle staged to shield his government from criticism. But exploiting heartbreak doesn't make bad law righteous. It just makes it manipulative.
The government doesn't get to decide what your family watches.
As communications academic Catherine Jane Archer warned, "Young people will be cut off from a huge creative outlet, and from social and political commentary." The ban doesn't just muzzle toxic content. It muzzles all content. Every teen with a guitar, a Bible, or a political opinion just got silenced by Canberra.
And it's not even consistent. The government's own research shows grooming, harassment, and image-based abuse are more common on platforms like Snapchat, yet those services get a free pass. Why? Because this isn't about risk. It is about narrative control.
Stand your ground. Resist the ID regime and surveillance state as much as you can. And parent like your child's freedom depends on it, because it does.