Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

The push to ban children under 16 from YouTube and other social media platforms isn’t about safety. It’s about government control—and the death of online anonymity.

Australians are being sold a lie dressed up in child-friendly packaging. The Albanese government and its eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, want to convince the public that banning under-16s from social media platforms, including YouTube, is about protecting kids from harm. But peel back the layers, and the real agenda becomes unmistakably clear: this is about forcing age verification, eliminating online anonymity, and silencing voices they can’t control.

The plan kicks in on December 10, 2025. Social media platforms—YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and others—will be forced to block access to users under 16. The so-called exemption for YouTube, originally made by the government citing its educational value, is now under threat because Inman Grant doesn’t like what kids might see there. Not because of porn, not because of gore, but because of “rabbit holes.”

‘Rabbit Holes’: Julie Inman Grant

Yes, rabbit holes. That’s the term she used. What are these rabbit holes? She didn’t say. But everyone knows what she means. Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, and Russell Brand are popular voices pushing back against the establishment narrative. Content that questions the climate hysteria. Videos that explore nationalism, traditional values, masculinity, Christianity. In other words, the sort of ideas Canberra elites want your kids insulated from.

Inman Grant claims children are “powerless to fight” YouTube’s algorithms, which she says drive them into spirals of misinformation and misogyny. But is she really talking about danger or just dissent?

Let’s not forget, this is the same bureaucrat who launched legal action against Elon Musk’s X platform last year, demanding global takedowns of controversial content. She’s not defending kids, she’s defending her power.

The so-called eSafety agenda has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with surveillance. Her own letter to Communications Minister Anika Wells makes it clear: she wants no exemptions. Not for YouTube. Not for anyone. Because exemptions weaken the enforcement mechanism—age verification. And without that, they can’t usher in the real prize: a traceable digital ID for every user.

Why Not Ban Porn, eSafety Commissioner?

But here’s the hypocrisy that screams to be acknowledged: if age verification is so vital, why is the eSafety Commissioner not demanding the same for pornographic websites?

These sites are scattered across the internet, accessible to any child with a phone and a moment alone.

No log-in, no ID, no warning. Just one click and it’s there. If children truly need to be shielded, wouldn’t that be the front line?

Or is this crackdown only meant for platforms where ideas, not images, are the threat?

The move to ban YouTube by Julia Inman Grant
now has many more realising the power trip at play.

Whilst Child psychologist Clare Rowe understands the dangers of social media she is not a supporter.

Noting if we’re gonna ban YouTube they might as well just ban the internet all… pic.twitter.com/Vn7WVW1KDd

— Kat A 🌸 (@SaiKate108) June 25, 2025

Enforcing ID for Everyone

Don’t be fooled. Age verification sounds innocent until you ask: how will they enforce it? Facial recognition? Finger scans? Government-issued ID uploads? Once tech companies are facing $49.5 million fines for letting one kid slip through, the answer’s obvious: they’ll require ID from everyone. And just like that, anonymity dies.

This mirrors COPPA 2.0 in the U.S., which proposes that platforms act on “implied knowledge” of a user’s age. It’s vague, impossible to meet without total surveillance, and deliberately designed to pressure every platform into blanket ID checks. Australia is importing the same approach, and Inman Grant is its most zealous enforcer.

The push to ban children under 16 from YouTube and other social media platforms isn’t about safety. It’s about government control—and the death of online anonymity.

Julie Inman Grant is ONE foreign bureaucrat.

It is INSANE that she gets to determine how and if AUSTRALIANS can access the internet.

This should not be allowed and SHAME ON THE LIBERALS for writing this legislation in the first place.

You opened this door.

— Alexandra Marshall (@ellymelly) June 25, 2025

Parental Replacement

The irony? She admits there’ll be no penalties for children who break the rules. None for the parents either. Why? Because the real targets are the platforms. And through them, all of us. The state doesn’t want to punish your child. They want to control how everyone accesses the internet. This isn’t parenting support. It’s parental replacement.

Opposition voices like Senator Matt Canavan have called this out. “Why does our government think it is their job to decide what people watch and listen to? Who exactly decides what is a ‘rabbit hole’?”

The government claims that it is banning kids from YouTube because it drives kids “down rabbit holes”.

Why does our government think it is their job to decide what people watch and listen to? Who exactly decides what is a “rabbit hole”? The Government should never be given such… pic.twitter.com/WREbP7npZj

— Senator Matt Canavan (@mattjcan) June 25, 2025

He’s right. These are cultural decisions for families, not bureaucratic mandates enforced by surveillance.

And what of the survey driving this push? A vague, opaque study of 2,600 children, asking 10-year-olds about gender identity and sexual orientation, and claiming 40% of them saw something “harmful” on YouTube. Harmful how? The questions aren’t public. The methodology is unclear. Yet it’s being used as the basis for nationwide censorship.

Control of the Digital Public Square

Make no mistake, this is a calculated attempt to seize control of the digital public square. To eliminate private, anonymous communication. To install government oversight into every screen, every app, every interaction. It’s not just about kids, it’s about all of us.

Australia is set to ban under 16s from using social media soon. Of course, to implement this ban, all social media users will have to verify their age and identity.

Are we inching closer to requiring Digital ID to use the Internet?

Watch as I discuss with James Macpherson on… pic.twitter.com/d9x4DGqF8i

— Senator Alex Antic (@SenatorAntic) June 23, 2025

The phrase “for the children” has always been the Trojan horse of tyranny. And this time, it’s carrying a payload of digital ID, surveillance, and speech control.

Australians need to wake up. Because if this goes unchallenged, there won’t just be a ban on YouTube for kids.

There will be a permanent ban on freedom online.

___

Originally published at Nation First. Image via Nation First.